Taxes, if you havent seen it before..here it is:

[1OFMANY]

This was making its way around and thought it was interesting:

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are
all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized
that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from
everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would
be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's
right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too It's unfair
that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh
man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!


And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

[thod]

Like the so called "brain drain", where all the best talent goes abroad. We are now going to have a "bastard drain".

[Latte]

Had some issues with this in the shipping and ship-manufacturing industry in Norway.

The voice of pragmatism and reason vs blind idealism.

[thod]

Isn't a Norwegian ship building industry like a Norwegian banana plantation?

You have darkness half the year and freezing conditions to work in. Compare that to the developing world. They mine and produce the steel locally eliminating costs, the ship builders work for $1 a day eliminating costs. Norway has the highest per capita income in the world. Exactly why would anyone want to build ships there? I don't see it as a tax issue.

[Latte]

Government subsidies, national protectionism, competence and experience. It has an uncertain future i think. Subcontractors and "borrowed" labor is a kind of duct-tape i guess.

Some random articles i found.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't really know much about this subject, other than that there was a major issue on whether unpayed taxes from several years backwards should be payed or not.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Don't worry, you'll continue to get an influx of wealth from countries with even more socialized tax systems than yours. Here, for instance, the richest from Quebec move to Ontario, the richest from Ontario move to Alberta, and the richest Albertans move to the US. (And don't get me started on those who move to Monaco or Dubai...)

The problem with the "tax the rich and corporations more" mentality is that it assumes that the rich and the corporations have nowhere to go. In fact, the rich and the corporations have the most options on where to go. That's why this only works if you limit mobility (a la Soviet Union) or if you have incentives other than money to keep the wealthy local.

[thod]

That's why this only works if you limit mobility (a la Soviet Union) or if you have incentives other than money to keep the wealthy local.

So come up with solutions to fix it.

If the rich guy earns $10 million from his US operations you treat it as US income and tax it as if the guy was a US resident.

If you don't know how much he made you treat it like the guy that refuses to fill in a tax return. You make a guess, a guess on the high side, and that is his tax liability.

Failure to pay is like a guy that owes tax but skips the country. You get him where you can, you seize his assets, arrest him when you can, intercept any shipments of goods etc.

He can go live in Bermuda but he cant locate his factories there.

This is a problem that more and more countries are coming up against. Lower taxes doesn't solve it since its a race to the bottom with zero tax then you have no functioning state. Still it doesn't matter if he locates his factories in a zero tax country. The government can slap a tariff on his goods to make up for the lost revenue. You want to be able to sell to the US consumer, or interact with them in any way you need the permission of the US government.

Governments will do whatever is needed to survive. You don't own a thing, you have bits in a computer. Those can be changed at any time. If the government says you don't own it then you don't. Move your dollars to a swiss bank then they are still not safe. The government tells the bank they no longer exist then they don't. The swiss bank will learn and not be accepting any more of those.

There is a very real difference between what lawyers do and the real world. The governments word is the whole of the law. No constitution, no treaty will ever change that. Its the meaning of power. The Russian billionaire tycoons were swept aside by Putin with ease. Money is vastly inferior to power.

[integratedvelocity]

Something else to think about is the marginal tax rate. I definitely wouldn't work more if I knew I would only be keeping half of my wages.

[1OFMANY]

The governments word is the whole of the law. No constitution, no treaty will ever change that

That my fine feathered friend is where you are wrong as 2 boys humping in church. governments come and go, freedom and the ideals set forth in the Constitution of the great United States will never be taken from the earth again. You severely over estimate the power of government to subject the people of the US to anything we don't let them do.

And as far as the "run from the tax" issue you pointed out. The rich don't mind paying taxes ( to a certain extent) just like the rest of us. Its when some sing-songy eutopian dreamer thinks that he knows more than 6000 years of human history and tries to get everyone all up in arms about how the tax system in the US is "unfair" that the rich get a little nervous. Not because they think their lives will change, cause they wont. Face it, rich people will NOT suffer, no matter what laws you inact, or systems you try to put in place the rich will always find a way to circumvent things. Its just how humans work. The only difference is that capitalists prefer a system where ANYONE can do that. Socialist/Fascist types ( like alot of young people) would have a system where the GOVERNMENT and the government alone( you just dont realize that this is what you are promoting yet) gets to live above suffering and dodging rules.

Dont even get me started....Ill /rant off now.

[Sylvanus]

California exodus turns to stampede
High taxes drive jobs, people from one state to another

WASHINGTON – California, which once lured Americans from near and far, is now driving out millions of the most productive residents – including high percentages of the most affluent.

"When California faced a Mount Everest-sized $14 billion deficit in 2003, one of the major causes for the red ink was the stampede of millionaire households from the state," says a report called "Rich States, Poor States" by economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore. "Out of the 25,000 or so seven-figure-income families, more than 5,000 left in the early 2000s, and the loss of their tax payments accounted for about half the budget hole."

And it's not just the rich leaving.

Based on data from moving companies, California had the second-highest domestic population out-flow of any state in 2005, according to the report, "despite the beautiful weather, beaches, and mountains."

The bad news for California is that it faces a $14 billion deficit this year, despite boasting one of the highest tax burdens in the nation.
etc...

Link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[thod]

That my fine feathered friend is where you are wrong as 2 boys humping in church. governments come and go, freedom and the ideals set forth in the Constitution of the great United States will never be taken from the earth again. You severely over estimate the power of government to subject the people of the US to anything we don't let them do

No government can be constrained by its forebears. The dead do not rule the living. No piece of paper call it a law, a treaty, or a constitution can do it. I support freedom, I don't wont be bound by dead men.

The government needed have the majority supporting it in order to govern but it needs a sizable segment. It will do what the people want, and they want whats good for them not for the millionaires.

The US is pretty unique in the democratic world in that is in the only plutocracy. A sensible system has the state provide the candidates campaign funds. The sums involved are minuscule compared to national budgets. Ensuring a fair election would be the best use of any government spent money. Its crazy that you can simply buy more TV air time than other candidates in order to win. Who does this favor? yep the rich. You have to be rich to play in US politics, not bright or righteous just rich. So you get a nation ruled by the rich for the rich. Most folks are poor but stupid enough to buy into the propaganda. Look at the scandal when a foreign government decided that 500 million is a good investment to place their puppet in the white house. Yet its OK for some billionaire to do it.

Anyhow what do propose states do to raise taxes? If you have none you are back to gun law and rich man is equal to poor under that.

[prometheus]

It's not a question of raising taxes, you will see more and more of the productive class moving or Shrugging (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). A huge reduction in government spending is the only answer.

For a new perspective on taxes, read this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and then consider the fact that every one of the processes mentioned are taxed, and the cost of those taxes are pass on and compound upon themselves.

[yondyr]

Just don't move here, Australia taxes foreign income whether brought into the country or not.

[1OFMANY]

Thod..you need to focus, lest you get yourself all worked up and get upset. We are talking about taxes, not running for office. Over spending on the governments part is what has caused and will cause most of the woes you refer to. Stop government wastefulness if you want to make a difference.

[thod]

It's not a question of raising taxes, you will see more and more of the productive class moving or Shrugging. A huge reduction in government spending is the only answer.


Who is the productive class? The planners, the engineers, the skilled worker, all these are left behind. Anyone that actually does anything is still here. The only one that has gone is the non productive. The guy that puts in 12 shifts making cars is not the leech, its the guy that sits in Bermuda with his trust fund that is the leech. You have got it all mixed up.

There are plenty of places with zero tax. Its an easy way to make money for small islands. You cannot compete on the basis of having the lowest tax. You are advocating a return to the conditions of the 18th century workhouses and mills. The owners sit in offshore tax havens. If the workers or the government asks for anything you threaten to move the mill. Cant you see any implications. That the millions are ruled not by their chosen leaders or for their benefit. Suppose that tax haven isle was Bermuda, we would have the de facto situation of Bermuda ruling the US. It will be a short time before a revolutionary army lands on millionaires isle.

We are talking about taxes

You mean the super low tax? try the 50% income tax rates for average incomes you have in Europe. Yet it prospers, the people are happier, the services better.

I am not opposed to stopping governent waste. Who could be. That is not the agenda though. The real agenda here is about greed. About taking a big stash for myself while the other guy starves. Waste is just a mask for that activity.

[Kfbr]

Too bad the rich guy can't just cry it off and not pay taxes

Poor him :cry:

[1OFMANY]

The rich and the poor alike are just fine with taxes, despite what you might think. You keep stating that we are advocating zero tax and that rich people want zero tax. Sure we all want more money in our pockets, but zero tax?? We all know that cant happen. Come up with a different arguement.

I guess it is summed up at the end of the original post:

"For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible"

[prometheus]

Who is the productive class? The planners, the engineers, the skilled worker, all these are left behind. Anyone that actually does anything is still here. The only one that has gone is the non productive. The guy that puts in 12 shifts making cars is not the leech, its the guy that sits in Bermuda with his trust fund that is the leech. You have got it all mixed up.

There are plenty of places with zero tax. Its an easy way to make money for small islands. You cannot compete on the basis of having the lowest tax. You are advocating a return to the conditions of the 18th century workhouses and mills. The owners sit in offshore tax havens. If the workers or the government asks for anything you threaten to move the mill. Cant you see any implications. That the millions are ruled not by their chosen leaders or for their benefit. Suppose that tax haven isle was Bermuda, we would have the de facto situation of Bermuda ruling the US. It will be a short time before a revolutionary army lands on millionaires isle.



You mean the super low tax? try the 50% income tax rates for average incomes you have in Europe. Yet it prospers, the people are happier, the services better.

I am not opposed to stopping governent waste. Who could be. That is not the agenda though. The real agenda here is about greed. About taking a big stash for myself while the other guy starves. Waste is just a mask for that activity.

You can talk theories all you want. Here are the facts. I have shrugged. I owned a successful business. One year we were doing just fine and I worked abound 40 hours each week and made 30K (after taxes), the next year we landed a huge contract and I worked 70+ hours per week (at a higher billable rate, FYI) and I made 40K(after taxes). Can you see the math there, the state has taken all incentive to work hard. I laid off our employees, sold one division, shut one down, and kept one piddly division that grosses less than 20K that is easy work. I now live (debt free) under the poverty line and don't, won't, ever pay taxes to those thieving bastards again. Maybe my employees were productive class people but they aren't for me anymore. If you bastards tax all businesses out of existence what do you think will happen.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? The parallels of where we have been are shocking, and I believe her vision of where it ends is spot on.





prometheus added to this post, 4 minutes and 59 seconds later...

Too bad the rich guy can't just cry it off and not pay taxes

Poor him :cry:

Yes he can, and your lack of respect for the real "movers" will eventually cost you your job.

Unless you somehow think that leaderless agrarian proletariat collectives work. :laugh:





prometheus added to this post, 1 minutes and 50 seconds later...

The rich and the poor alike are just fine with taxes, despite what you might think. You keep stating that we are advocating zero tax and that rich people want zero tax. Sure we all want more money in our pockets, but zero tax?? We all know that cant happen. Come up with a different arguement.

I guess it is summed up at the end of the original post:

"For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible"

Speak for your self, I DO want zero taxes, I would like to see all taxes replaced with voluntary user fees.

[thod]

You can talk theories all you want. Here are the facts. I have shrugged. I owned a successful business. One year we were doing just fine and I worked abound 40 hours each week and made 30K (after taxes), the next year we landed a huge contract and I worked 70+ hours per week (at a higher billable rate, FYI) and I made 40K(after taxes). Can you see the math there, the state has taken all incentive to work hard. I laid off our employees, sold one division, shut one down, and kept one piddly division that grosses less than 20K that is easy work. I now live (debt free) under the poverty line and don't, won't, ever pay taxes to those thieving bastards again. Maybe my employees were productive class people but they aren't for me anymore. If you bastards tax all businesses out of existence what do you think will happen.

My company is a one man outfit, I sell my time through it. I work or dont as I please. I make $250k a year and its an easy life. I am not rich by any means. I count myself among the working class. Yet I pay out 45% tax each year. I am happy to do so. I reduce it if I can and my accountant says I will get away with it.

Your business sounds like it was barely able to pay the bills. You never made it to the ranks of the rich.

[prometheus]

My company is a one man outfit, I sell my time through it. I work or dont as I please. I make $250k a year and its an easy life. I am not rich by any means. I count myself among the working class. Yet I pay out 45% tax each year. I am happy to do so. I reduce it if I can and my accountant says I will get away with it.

Your business sounds like it was barely able to pay the bills. You never made it to the ranks of the rich.


After the double hit from FICA and SS, the business taxes, and the personal taxes were were paying roughly a 70-80% tax rate. I never said we were "rich" I said we were fucked for running the business. We had a great accountant too.

[ElstonGunn]

On a related note, I thought this was interesting. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


There is some evidence that cutting the corporate tax rate can produce more revenue than was projected under the higher rate in the special case of multinational corporations, which can move their money and operations around to take advantage of lower taxes in certain countries. Economists with the pro-business American Enterprise Institute came to that conclusion in a study released in July 2007. They found that lower corporate rates attract enough growth in corporate income to produce higher government revenues. However, one of the authors, Kevin A. Hassett, told FactCheck.org that small countries, such as Ireland, had the most success and that "it may or may not be correct" to apply the study's results to the United States.

So basically, "Yeah, this might work, but we're not really sure." How useful, huh?

[ArchonAlarion]

If it is wrong for one man to take by force, property, from another man, why is it okay for a few men with funny hats and suits to take by force, property, from the many?

The state and taxes are immoral and subjective. Even a state funded voluntarily is immoral, because it must maintain a monopoly on its services (courts, police, etc.) which means attacking and imprisoning any other individuals who offer the same services. If a state didn't initiate force or fraud to maintain a monopoly on its services than it wouldn't be a state, but would be a business because it is a totally voluntary organization. Therefore, even the smallest amount of state is corrupt, immoral, and subjective.

[1OFMANY]

Therefore, even the smallest amount of state is corrupt, immoral, and subjective.

True in theory but not in practice. We have to assume a certain degree of monopoly to avoid chaos and corruption of a higher level.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Therefore, even the smallest amount of state is corrupt, immoral, and subjective.

Bull. Immorality is not taking care of people who need help. Immorality is not coming together as a community to do together what cannot be done individually. Human beings are social animals and, as such, we need to come together and do some things commonly in order to survive.

[yondyr]

Sending all taxes to Africa and similarly afflicted countries might be called 'taking care of other people in order that they survive'......

[prometheus]

Bull. Immorality is not taking care of people who need help. Immorality is not coming together as a community to do together what cannot be done individually. Human beings are social animals and, as such, we need to come together and do some things commonly in order to survive.

It is individualism that the American Founders elevated into political prominence and it is individualism that most politicians and governments, including America’s, find most annoying because it is the bulwark against arbitrary power.

If, as the Declaration of Independence states, individual human beings have unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no one may violate these rights. Every adult individual is sovereign, a self-ruler and not subject to the rule of others. (This is why Americans are referred to as citizens, not as subjects, like so many around the globe.)

Karl Marx was among the many political theorists — like Hegel and Comte — who realized that if individualism becomes prominent, their dream of ruling others in the name of whatever “higher goal or power” is over and done with.

So they worked tirelessly to discredit individualism, to establish that no one is sovereign and we all belong to some group — the nation, the tribe, the race, the class, the ethnic group, whatever.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[coffeeloverfreak]

It's not either-or. You are a better individual if you care for the group. You have a better group if it is made up of independent-minded individuals. "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, who am I?"

[yondyr]

Sorry, a better individual lemming.

[prometheus]

It's not either-or. You are a better individual if you care for the group. You have a better group if it is made up of independent-minded individuals. "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, who am I?"

Bull. Immorality is not taking care of people who need help. Immorality is not coming together as a community to do together what cannot be done individually. Human beings are social animals and, as such, we need to come together and do some things commonly in order to survive.


Your quote above implies people being forced into, and/or financially supporting social programs. This reasoning is in direct conflict with individual freedom.

[Sylvanus]

Bull. Immorality is not taking care of people who need help. Immorality is not coming together as a community to do together what cannot be done individually. Human beings are social animals and, as such, we need to come together and do some things commonly in order to survive.

The community does not necessarily mean the government. The Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc are funded by voluntary donations and they take care of people better than the government is able to.

[prometheus]

The community does not necessarily mean the government. The Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc are funded by voluntary donations and they take care of people better than the government is able to.

You noticed my emphasis on the word need, perhaps she meant could. I'll wait to hear from the OPer of this statement. But, I do agree with you. Let's see what she has to say.

[Sylvanus]

On a related note, I thought this was interesting. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So basically, "Yeah, this might work, but we're not really sure." How useful, huh?

President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue--adjusted for inflation--increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year (See Table 4). In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.

Prior to the tax cut, the economy was choking on high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment. All three of these economic bellwethers dropped sharply after the tax cuts. The unemployment rate, which peaked at 9.7 percent in 1982, began a steady decline, reaching 7.0 percent by 1986 and 5.3 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989.

Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually.

The most controversial portion of Reagan's tax revolution was reducing the highest marginal income tax rate from 70 percent (when he took office in 1981) to 28 percent in 1988. However, Internal Revenue Service data reveal that tax collections from the wealthy, as measured by personal income taxes paid by top percentile earners, increased between 1980 and 1988--despite significantly lower tax rates (See Table 8).


Taxes (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

While a 35% rate (39% on average when state taxes are factored in) might have made sense 20 years ago, other countries have slashed their taxes in recent years to attract companies. The USA's nominal rate is now second highest among industrialized nations, behind only Japan — offset by deductions and allowances.

USAToday (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

...What do politicians in these countries understand that the U.S. Congress doesn't? Perhaps they've read "International Competitiveness for Dummies." In each of the countries that have cut corporate tax rates this year, the motivation has been the same -- to boost the nation's attractiveness as a location for international investment. Germany's overall rate will fall to 29.8% by 2008 from 38.7%. Remarkably, at the start of this decade Germany's corporate tax rate was 52%.

All of which means that the U.S. now has the unflattering distinction of having the developed world's highest corporate tax rate of 39.3% (35% federal plus a state average of 4.3%), according to the Tax Foundation. While Ronald Reagan led the "wave of corporate income tax rate reduction" in the 1980s, the Tax Foundation says, "the U.S. is lagging behind this time."

Foreign leaders are also learning another lesson: Lower corporate tax rates with fewer loopholes can lead to more, not less, tax revenue from business. The nearby chart shows the Laffer Curve effect from business taxation. Tax receipts tend to fall below their optimum potential when corporate tax rates are so high that they lead to the creation of loopholes and the incentive to move income to countries with a lower tax rate. Ireland is the classic case of a nation on the "correct side" of this curve. It has a 12.5% corporate rate, nearly the lowest in the world, and yet collects 3.6% of GDP in corporate revenues, well above the international average.
If only the tax writers in Washington would heed this advice. Congress is moving in the reverse direction, threatening to raise the tax rate on corporate dividends, which is another tax on business income. There's also movement in the Senate to raise taxes on the foreign-source income of U.S. companies. The effect would be to raise the marginal tax rate for companies that base their corporate headquarters abroad.

But one reason those countries chose to move to the Cayman Islands and elsewhere is because of the high U.S. corporate tax rate. The Laffer Curve analysis indicates that these corporate tax increases are likely to raise little if any additional revenue, because companies will have a new incentive to move even more of their operations out of the reach of the IRS.

For all the talk of "tax equity," this is also a recipe for further inequality by driving more capital offshore. Research from Mr. Hassett and others has shown that high corporate tax rates reduce the rate of increase in manufacturing wages (See our editorial, "The Wages of Growth," Dec. 26, 2006.). For that matter, most economists understand that corporations don't ultimately pay any taxes. They merely serve as a collection agent, passing along the cost of those taxes in some combination of lower returns for shareholders, higher prices for customers, or lower compensation for employees. In other words, America's high corporate tax rates are an indirect, but still damaging, tax on average American workers.

One immediate policy remedy would be to cut the 35% U.S. federal corporate tax rate to the industrial nation average of 29%. That's probably too sensible for a Congress gripped by a desire to soak the rich and punish business, but a Democrat who picked up the idea could turn the tax tables on Republicans in 2008. Meantime, as the U.S. fails to act, the rest of the world is looking more attractive all the time.



Wall Street Journal (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I think the consensus is that revenues will go up.





Sylvanus added to this post, 3 minutes and 20 seconds later...

You noticed my emphasis on the word need, perhaps she meant could. I'll wait to hear from the OPer of this statement. But, I do agree with you. Let's see what she has to say.

I actually had not seen you post yet when I replied to hers, but I think we are both on the same wavelength on this topic..

[coffeeloverfreak]

I'm not talking about charity. I'm talking about things that we need to do together because they simply are not feasible separately. You want to pave your own roads? Dig your own sewers? Pump and filter your own water? Collect your own trash? Defend your own borders?

Yes, there are some people who are extremists who live entirely 'off the grid' but I don't think that anyone would argue that they're better off. We benefit from specialization, so we don't all have to know how to do everything. We can each do what we're best at, and together, be strong.

[integratedvelocity]

I'm curious, what do you guys think about VAT in lieu of income tax?

[prometheus]

I'm not talking about charity. I'm talking about things that we need to do together because they simply are not feasible separately. You want to pave your own roads? Dig your own sewers? Pump and filter your own water? Collect your own trash? Defend your own borders?

Yes, there are some people who are extremists who live entirely 'off the grid' but I don't think that anyone would argue that they're better off. We benefit from specialization, so we don't all have to know how to do everything. We can each do what we're best at, and together, be strong.

I am one of the people who lives "off the grid". However not everyone can and I realize people want some of these services. My point was that there is NOTHING the government does that can't be done better and more efficiently by the private sector. If it is done by the private sector, it's not a need it's a want and is voluntary.

[coffeeloverfreak]

But cooperation is necessary even in the private sector.

Don't get me wrong, in most cases I think opening up industries to privatization and competition is preferable over having things be government monopolies. In most cases, the private sector does a better job more efficiently. You and I probably aren't that far apart.

But I have to argue the other side because I see where this goes in extremism. The basic point is that, at the core level, private industry is answerable to shareholders; governments are answerable to voters. In some cases, where public welfare and private financial motives directly clash, it's preferable to restrict private sector involvement, because the incentive for private industry simply isn't there to do a good job.

[prometheus]

But I have to argue the other side because I see where this goes in extremism. The basic point is that, at the core level, private industry is answerable to shareholders; governments are answerable to voters.

This is where you are completely wrong, the private sector is held (lethally) in check by the market, aka the people....really the people, not the government definition of the people, who they really don't give a shit about, as long as their bureaucratic budget isn't cut. If the people don't want/need your product you go out of business. I highly recommend some economic classes. Austrian (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) preferably.

Modify to move part.





prometheus added to this post, 81 minutes and 15 seconds later...



Yes, there are some people who are extremists who live entirely 'off the grid' but I don't think that anyone would argue that they're better off. .

I'm going to take exception to that statement, I'm not an extremist, I'm just a guy who is intelligent enough to know some history, and my rights. I refuse to allow the "shackles to rest lightly upon me" while I can see the inevitable out come of todays trends ending in the next generation Gulag, concentration camp, Warsaw Ghetto, etc.. Though, I'm pretty sure they will call it a "FEMA Re-education Program" or some such.

[yondyr]

Adds my two bits to prometheus' position. I'm off grid, off paved road, off mains water, off city sewerage scheme etc... and immensely better off. When the storm cuts the electric power, floods the mains water pipes, sewage system, and washes out the roads, I'm blissfully unaware.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Yeah but do you grow all your own food? Or do you ever go to a store to buy something? Do you sew all your own clothes from home-grown fibers? Or do you ever purchase a shirt from a clothing store? You're posting on the internet; did you set up your own fibre-optic cables? Or did you subscribe to some sort of ISP or internet service? Did you manufacture your computer with your own hands from scratch?

Society involves interaction. If you're so adament about being an island, then go live on one. But if you want to participate in society, it's always a give-and-take. And when it works, everyone is better off for it.

[prometheus]

I'm curious, what do you guys think about VAT in lieu of income tax?


It's still thievery. I might have a more concrete opinion on taxes than most here though. ;)

[coffeeloverfreak]

I'm curious, what do you guys think about VAT in lieu of income tax?

Sales taxes such as VAT, GST, PST disproportionately target the poor, because the poor need to spend a larger proportion of their income on bare necessities of survival.

[prometheus]

Yeah but do you grow all your own food? Or do you ever go to a store to buy something? Do you sew all your own clothes from home-grown fibers? Or do you ever purchase a shirt from a clothing store? You're posting on the internet; did you set up your own fibre-optic cables? Or did you subscribe to some sort of ISP or internet service? Did you manufacture your computer with your own hands from scratch?

Society involves interaction. If you're so adament about being an island, then go live on one. But if you want to participate in society, it's always a give-and-take. And when it works, everyone is better off for it.

No one is arguing against voluntary interactions between individuals in society, just government mandated "cooperation".

Do you feel the government must make laws to FORCE people to interact?





prometheus added to this post, 2 minutes and 39 seconds later...

Sales taxes such as VAT, GST, PST disproportionately target the poor, because the poor need to spend a larger proportion of their income on bare necessities of survival.


As I said thievery. It doesn't matter if you take 1$ from the poor, or $1000000 for the rich, it is still stealing.

Did you know the income tax was originally a temporary measure to get us through the war, it was also originally only for corporate earnings, and that it is still classified as voluntary?

[coffeeloverfreak]

Um, I'm Canadian, so this "us" talk isn't really relevant to me.

Anyway, to address your points: Government isn't some external force that is somehow above the people. Government is a function of people "voluntarily" (as you put it) getting together and electing leadership in order to administer and govern a large nation which is impractical to run by a plebecite every time a decision needs to be made. There are no divine forces in government. If you don't like your government, change it. Get off your ass, run for something, campaign, vote, whatever.

[prometheus]

Um, I'm Canadian, so this "us" talk isn't really relevant to me.

Anyway, to address your points: Government isn't some external force that is somehow above the people. Government is a function of people "voluntarily" (as you put it) getting together and electing leadership in order to administer and govern a large nation which is impractical to run by a plebecite every time a decision needs to be made. There are no divine forces in government. If you don't like your government, change it. Get off your ass, run for something, campaign, vote, whatever.


Here is my reply to your last part since you must have missed it in the voting thread:

If voting could change anything it would be illegal.

It's the same message every election year: "Get out and vote - It's your civic duty." Those who audit the sound bites of the candidates, read headlines about the debates and finally pull the lever at their local precinct are touted as moral, upstanding citizens; those who find among the candidates no agreeable representative, no platform worthy of espousal, and who then refuse to turn out on election day, on the other hand, are labeled apathetic and the legitimacy of their opposition is denied.

Voting is implicitly a coercive act because it lends support to a compulsory state; voting reinforces the legitimacy of the state; and existing nonpolitical, voluntarist alternatives better serve society.

I highly recommend this book: Dissenting Electorate - An Anthology on Non-Voting

Here is a great read also. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




A more in depth post and link is provided just under where this was originally posted.

Your claim that because "we" elected an official anything he forces the population to do is voluntary is COMPLETE UTTER BULLSHIT, Saddam was "elected" so was Hitler, do you think the actions against the Kurds or Jews was "voluntary"? Come on you can do better, if you are a raving socialist like you sound ask Lights for some tips. :p

[coffeeloverfreak]

All this from a guy whose personal quote is "I like boobies". Whatever. But I digress.

Your entire argument is defeatist. Let's break it down:

If voting could change anything it would be illegal.

It's the same message every election year: "Get out and vote - It's your civic duty." Those who audit the sound bites of the candidates, read headlines about the debates and finally pull the lever at their local precinct are touted as moral, upstanding citizens; those who find among the candidates no agreeable representative, no platform worthy of espousal, and who then refuse to turn out on election day, on the other hand, are labeled apathetic and the legitimacy of their opposition is denied.

Let's examine the claim: The political machine is too big, too intimidating, and nothing I can do can possibly effect change. So I'd prefer to sit out.

This claim is fallicious because it assumes that there's an inherent separation between "them" (government) and "us" (people). But that's not true. "Them" is made up of "us". Anyone can run for office. Anyone can vote.

It seems intimidating because it is intimidating. Sure, it's tough to get into power now without the right amounts of money, connections, etc. But even those things are subject to the will of laws passed by people. If you vote for enough candidates who are in favour of campaign finance reform, for instance, you can make politics more accessible to the non-fabulously wealthy and less influenced by special interests. If you think that there's too much cronyism, then vote to enact more term limits. Whatever it takes.

But if you really truly believe that one person can't effect change, then you obviously aren't a student of history as you claim. There's always a way to do something about it.

"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain." - Maya Angelou.

Voting is implicitly a coercive act because it lends support to a compulsory state; voting reinforces the legitimacy of the state; and existing nonpolitical, voluntarist alternatives better serve society.

Voting is precisely a non-coercive act because the most tyrannical governments are voted in by the assumption that the majority of people don't care enough to get involved.

I'll give you an example. In my university days, the student union was run by a group of extremist left-wing students who spent their days staging riots and fighting battles on the opposite side of the issues from me (and from a lot of students). They got voted in year after year by less than 5% of the student body, since this was the percentage who typically voted. Most people reacted to the elections with apathy, which was how they got away with it so often.

After they went too far, people started getting involved. A group of opposition students ran against them. Gains were made but it wasn't enough. After a particularly disgusting episode, the student body got involved enough to create a successful petition to recall the student government (similar to the governer of California situation). It was signed by over 10% of the student body - nearly double the number of people who had voted for them. The student union executive was forced to resign, but because they had stacked the judiciary board, they managed to overturn the results of the subsequent by-election (which they lost) and appoint themselves as interim execs. The following election, a lot of people were discouraged and didn't vote, so they got elected again.

The next year, they staged a massive riot that garnered international attention and finally woke most people out of their lethargy. The alumni association got involved and contacted students to urge them to vote. Professors spoke up in classes. Students went room to room, club to club. Turnout was about 6 times what it had been in previous elections. And guess what? Finally, the opposition won, and the campus ushered in an era of much, much better government.

Sure, everyone could have continued to simply stay home. But nothing would have ever gotten better. Instead, by getting involved, we were able to effect real change that made a real difference for the next generation of students coming through the doors of the university.

Your arguments for staying home sound less like idealism and more like defeatist laziness, to tell the truth.

Your claim that because "we" elected an official anything he forces the population to do is voluntary is COMPLETE UTTER BULLSHIT, Saddam was "elected" so was Hitler, do you think the actions against the Kurds or Jews was "voluntary"? Come on you can do better, if you are a raving socialist like you sound ask Lights for some tips. :p

I'm calling Godwin's Law on you, for one thing. For another, your analogy is again fallicious, because in the second case, the initial election was quasi-legitimate but it was followed by a forceful takeover and conversion to dictatorship, while in the first case, the entire election was just for show to begin with, and nobody actually had the right to really vote. Say what you will about voting machine irregularities in Florida in 2000, but if you are seriously equating that with Saddam's torture, murder and imprisonment of anyone who voted against him, then you need to re-examine your argument.

As for me being a "raving socialist", that's one of the funniest things I've read all night. Do you even know what socialism is? Have you even read my posts on the socialism thread?

[prometheus]

That post was the short answer. Here is what I referred to in my last post.

No attempt or pretence, that was ever carried into practical operation amongst civilized men --- unless possibly the pretence of a "Divine Right," on the part of some, to govern and enslave others embodied so much of shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villany of every kind, as the attempt or pretence of establishing a government by consent, and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak. It no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth.

What substitute for their consent is offered to the weaker party, whose rights are thus annihilated, struck out of existence, by the stronger? Only this: Their consent is presumed! That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously presume that those whom they enslave, consent to surrender their all of life, liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them! And it is pretended that this presumption of their consent --- when no actual consent has been given --- is sufficient to save the rights of the victims, and to justify the usurpers! As well might the highwayman pretend to justify himself by presuming that the traveller consents to part with his money. As well might the assassin justify himself by simply presuming that his victim consents to part with his life. As well the holder of chattel slaves to himself by presuming that they consent to his authority, and to the whips and the robbery which he practises upon them. The presumption is simply a presumption that the weaker party consent to be slaves.

Such is the presumption on which alone our government relies to justify the power it maintains over its unwilling subjects. And it was to establish that presumption as the inexorable and perpetual law of this country, that so much money and blood have been expended.


Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.

Therefore a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





prometheus added to this post, 4 minutes and 10 seconds later...

My apologies for the socialist comment. I still don't understand how you can't see a democratic government being nothing more than "Might Makes Right" though.

[yondyr]

Yeah but do you grow all your own food? Or do you ever go to a store to buy something? Do you sew all your own clothes from home-grown fibers? Or do you ever purchase a shirt from a clothing store? You're posting on the internet; did you set up your own fibre-optic cables? Or did you subscribe to some sort of ISP or internet service? Did you manufacture your computer with your own hands from scratch?

Society involves interaction. If you're so adament about being an island, then go live on one. But if you want to participate in society, it's always a give-and-take. And when it works, everyone is better off for it.

Consistent with this thread re taxes, I was pointing out areas that private industry, i.e. me, was providing sevices immeasurably better than govt. Nowhere have I claimed to want to live on an island, and suggesting I do so in a diatribe is inflammatory.

[Sylvanus]

Voting is implicitly a coercive act because it lends support to a compulsory state; voting reinforces the legitimacy of the state; and existing nonpolitical, voluntarist alternatives better serve society.

I highly recommend this book: Dissenting Electorate - An Anthology on Non-Voting

Here is a great read also. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




So what options are there? I change nothing by not voting. I may or may not change anything by voting. Revolt may have the unintended consequences of putting a worse government in charge. I am deeply unsatisfied with the current system, but IMO the only way I can seriously affect the situation is by running for office and fixing the system from the inside. Not an easy job by any menas but I am truly at a loss for anything better, especially by not voting.

[prometheus]

So what options are there? I change nothing by not voting. I may or may not change anything by voting. Revolt may have the unintended consequences of putting a worse government in charge. I am deeply unsatisfied with the current system, but IMO the only way I can seriously affect the situation is by running for office and fixing the system from the inside. Not an easy job by any menas but I am truly at a loss for anything better, especially by not voting.

Here is a link with many answers for your questions, I'll let those more wise, or who have at least spent more time organizing the points on this topic provide the answers.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ArchonAlarion]

Majority rules (democracy) is totally equivical to gang rape.

Yes it is. A majority (rapers) make a decision and than because of their superior numbers coerce the minority (rapee) into obeying. In many ways gang rape is preferable to democracy because at least the rapee knows its wrong and might put up a fight.

[Colette]

He is like prometheus on speed. It's hard to even argue with him because its just so much fun to watch.

And yet here you are, in full masochistic INFJ mode, keeping 'em all honest, day after day. Rather you than me, my friend ;)

Was it Shaw who said Democracy is the only system that is guaranteed to deliver to the people exactly the Government they deserve? Pretty spot on, whoever it was..

[Theodoric]

Who is the productive class? The planners, the engineers, the skilled worker, all these are left behind. Anyone that actually does anything is still here. The only one that has gone is the non productive. The guy that puts in 12 shifts making cars is not the leech, its the guy that sits in Bermuda with his trust fund that is the leech. You have got it all mixed up.

And then when the business owner, I mean the leech as you call him, decides that enough is enough and that he is sick of paying taxes and closes his business, moves it to China, and enjoys increased revenues by lowering his costs, those people in the productive class are now without a job. He is providing those producers with a job. He is operating the business so that it stays in business which those producers are unable to do.

All those producers are lacking many things such as the skills to operate a business and the capital to start a business. So now, without their former employer and no one willing to take them on because there skills are not in demand they go running to the government for help. Then the government decides to implement protectionist trade policies and increases taxes on the rich and corporations, and the whole cycle repeats itself. Unless you are advocating that the government decides to close off the borders and disallows people to leave the country while at the same time increasing tariffs on imported goods there is no way that increasing taxes will work. And increasing tariffs on imported goods only does one thing which is encourage other countries to adopt the same protectionist practices in turn, which will then further lower the markets in which products from the first government are reduced making it a completely closed society, unable to bring in revenue from outside sources and stagnating economically. Increasingly taxes on businesses has a similar adverse effect. At worst, this increased the costs of doing business which are then placed upon the consumer, which is usually the worker or producer as you call him. So now the consumer does not only have to shoulder the burden of the taxation that has been placed upon him, but also the burden of taxation that was placed upon the businesses he patronizes. However, at worst it leads to businesses fleeing their country to set up operations in countries that do not tax so heavily.

The precedent for people leaving countries for economic reasons, mainly tax reasons, has already been set. Denmark is already feeling this. Young Danes are leaving Denmark in record numbers, many of which were born and educated at the government's expense, have fled because of the obscenely high tax rates, sometimes reaching 68% of a persons income. These people are well educated, highly skilled, and would contribute significantly to the nations economy. However, due to the repressive, progressive tax system that the Danish government has instituted, these people that would have increased the economic well being of the country have fled to places that value them much more. And this shows the inherent flaw in wealth redistribution systems. The skilled workers with much to lose flee them, increasing the economic instability not only by reducing the workforce, but also putting more strain on the businesses to find highly skilled workers. It then sends a message to the rest of the populous that hard work is not rewarded and in demand skills are not valued. This in turn leads to economic stagnation, which then leads to increased unemployment and poverty.

[Lights]

Flat tax on household income and corporate profits.

Problem solved. The tax rate will be stable so businesses can prosper and won't flee and the government will get what it needs. Otherwise, businesses will just continue to run off to country after country in attempt to always find the lowest tax rate and that will keep tax rates too low to allow for effective government.

[Sylvanus]

Flat tax on household income and corporate profits.

Problem solved. The tax rate will be stable so businesses can prosper and won't flee and the government will get what it needs. Otherwise, businesses will just continue to run off to country after country in attempt to always find the lowest tax rate and that will keep tax rates too low to allow for effective government.

Or a flat sales tax (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It encourages businesses to invest, workers to work, savers to save.

[Theodoric]

Flat tax on household income and corporate profits.

Problem solved. The tax rate will be stable so businesses can prosper and won't flee and the government will get what it needs. Otherwise, businesses will just continue to run off to country after country in attempt to always find the lowest tax rate and that will keep tax rates too low to allow for effective government.

Or we implement the Fair Tax. Either way, it solves the problems of increased taxation leading to the fleeing of highly skilled individuals and corporations.

[thod]

The problem is that lowering taxes will not stop business from fleeing. I can produce anything cheaper outside the US where everyone is rich. I can move my business anywhere in the world, fine, most of the world will work for $2 a day. This is not accpetable to Americans. They will not tolerate one car per town and a refrigerater per 5 houses. Thats the standard that Americans will have to live at if they are going to compete.

Anything that can be moved offshore or outsourced is being done so. Not because of taxes but because of labor costs. They could open up the borders and allow free for all immigration. That would bring down labor costs and keep the industry in the US. But such drastic falls in living standards with men on every street corner looking for work will bring the govenrment to its knees.

Perhaps you ask why the financial firms continue to cluster around Wall street despite it being the most expensive place to do business.

[Theodoric]

The problem is that lowering taxes will not stop business from fleeing. I can produce anything cheaper outside the US where everyone is rich. I can move my business anywhere in the world, fine, most of the world will work for $2 a day. This is not accpetable to Americans. They will not tolerate one car per town and a refrigerater per 5 houses. Thats the standard that Americans will have to live at if they are going to compete.

Americans need to learn several things. One, if your only skills are menial labor which anyone can do, you've already placed yourself outside of the market. Professional skills are in demand. Being able to lift something, not so much. There is little excuse for this since an education is freely available where you can learn and develop professional grade skills.

Two, the current high standard of living that many take for granted is grossly inflated. Americans expect a car for each spouse and then another car for their overprivileged kid. Americans aren't content with living in simple homes like they did decades ago. They need to live in sprawling McMansions, replete with all the modern conveniences and having 5 bedrooms and 3 baths for only 2-5 people. And this is mostly because Americans are fueled by jealousy and are not content because someone else has a thing they don't.

Three, American whine and complain that all the jobs are moving overseas. However, if we kept all our jobs in the country, then these Americans would further complain when faced with higher and higher prices for necessities. As individual incomes keep rising, prices keep rising. The only way to lower prices is to either outsource production or to automate. Either way, jobs are being lost. At least with outsourcing it stimulates the economies of other countries and creating new products, thereby allowing us to export our manufactured goods to them and creating more jobs.


Perhaps you ask why the financial firms continue to cluster around Wall street despite it being the most expensive place to do business.

Not really. No other place in the World offers the same diverse skills, connections, and financial resources. Malaysia has plenty of unskilled laborers that can sew a button on a shirt. However the number of investors, bankers, attorneys, and other professionals are relatively none. Its an expensive place to do business, but at the current time it is the only place that this business can be done.