Progressive Tax

[soundgarden]

I am curious, what are some arguments against a progressive tax.

For me, I am for a progressive tax for two reasons:

First,  I feel there is a direct relationship  between the amount of money someone makes and the number of people involved in those gains.  For example, the CEO of GM makes a very large income, but then he is only capable of that due to the army of workers under him.  In fact, it can be argued that the amount of workers justify his paycheck (among other factors of course).  Additionally,  He is directly responsible only for his company, and indirectly responsible for the very livelihood of the men and women under him.  By the nature of how business works, he would only provide to his workers an income, benefits, and other things only necessary to keep them financially beneficial to the company.

Additionally, these people are placed in a situation where they relinquish a level of their own personal control (and its not by choice because people need to work).  While outside of a company they are at the mercy of the laws of the state; while in the company they are at the mercy of another set of rules and laws in addition to the laws of the state.

Should the CEO pay more on this taxes than his workers under him? I think so because his income is not truly self-made.  It is on the metaphorical backs of many others as well as the fact that he indirectly responsible for the very livelihood of his workers.

If a government is truly for its people, it should request more from higher incomes because, in essence, the have a greater influence on the lives of those under them.  There should be safety's for when a CEO's mismanagement results in the collapse of the company.  A part of his pay should have been taken prior to cater for the livelihood of those under him in the event a situation like that occurs.  (Then by all means, let capitalism run rampant.  If companies fail let them fail, but the government would have collected from executives to cater for those regular joes now out of work.  The masses or the government should not pay for the incompetence of a few)

Secondly, as a citizen I want my fellow citizens to be happy, safe, healthy and have opportunities.  A nation is not about individuals, its a collective.  If I make more, I belief its my duty as a citizen and a human to give more to help my brethren.  I often forget though, or get caught up in my own life.  I don't know of all the problems afflicting my fellow citizens in the country and I by no means have the time to research.  The government has the infrastructure and ability to determine need and distribute as necessary part of my income to the areas of need.

-------

Thoughts?

[XJDenton]

Progressive tax meaning you get taxed more the more you earn correct?

[Seventh Son]

Progressive tax meaning you get taxed more the more you earn correct?

Yes. I personally have mixed feelings on it though, but I'm sure we're bound to get both sides of the argument here shortly. 

[GuineaPig]

Is there some way to prevent ainatamoore from seeing this thread?

[j]

Progressive tax meaning you get taxed more the more you earn correct?

That's what I'm assuming.  In general, I'm opposed to this type of taxation, though there are exceptions.

First,  I feel there is a direct relationship  between the amount of money someone makes and the number of people involved in those gains.  For example, the CEO of GM makes a very large income, but then he is only capable of that due to the army of workers under him.  In fact, it can be argued that the amount of workers justify his paycheck (among other factors of course).  Additionally,  He is directly responsible only for his company, and indirectly responsible for the very livelihood of the men and women under him.  By the nature of how business works, he would only provide to his workers an income, benefits, and other things only necessary to keep them financially beneficial to the company.

Additionally, these people are placed in a situation where they relinquish a level of their own personal control (and its not by choice because people need to work).  While outside of a company they are at the mercy of the laws of the state; while in the company they are at the mercy of another set of rules and laws in addition to the laws of the state.

Should the CEO pay more on this taxes than his workers under him? I think so because his income is not truly self-made.  It is on the metaphorical backs of many others as well as the fact that he indirectly responsible for the very livelihood of his workers.

First of all, surely you don't honestly think that everyone's income is based on some universal hierarchy of people working under them?  But even if it did, this makes no sense.  That CEO has infinitely more responsibilities than a mechanic, and (presumably) he "earned" his position through hard work, education, experience, and other qualifications (I actually had trouble typing that without gagging, but it is the going assumption).  Even if he is incompetent, unethical, or whatever, he IS responsible for the well-being of the company, and he's compensated accordingly.  I agree that contractual measures should be taken in the case that a company fails, the executives are liable to some extent.  But taxing them harder accomplishes absolutely nothing.

There should be safety's for when a CEO's mismanagement results in the collapse of the company.  A part of his pay should have been taken prior to cater for the livelihood of those under him in the event a situation like that occurs.  (Then by all means, let capitalism run rampant.  If companies fail let them fail, but the government would have collected from executives to cater for those regular joes now out of work.  The masses or the government should not pay for the incompetence of a few)

Like I said above, I agree for the most part, but it has nothing to do with taxation.

If a government is truly for its people, it should request more from higher incomes because, in essence, the have a greater influence on the lives of those under them.

What?  Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  If a person's goal is to make millions of dollars, they have the freedom to bust their asses to do it.  If their investments and practices are sound, they necessarily contribute to society through their efforts economically (by purchasing capital, etc.) in ways that *do* indirectly effect those who earn less.

Secondly, as a citizen I want my fellow citizens to be happy, safe, healthy and have opportunities.  A nation is not about individuals, its a collective.  If I make more, I belief its my duty as a citizen and a human to give more to help my brethren.  I often forget though, or get caught up in my own life.

I completely agree, but that is a matter of personal philosophy that I wouldn't shoulder others with if they wish to reject it.

I don't know of all the problems afflicting my fellow citizens in the country and I by no means have the time to research.  The government has the infrastructure and ability to determine need and distribute as necessary part of my income to the areas of need.

Totally disagree with the bolded.  I'm no conspiracy theorist (just a cynic), but I have little to no faith in my government to do any of this.  It may have the infrastructure, but it continually demonstrates its incompetence with its decision making in every area.  Although in theory I should be glad to have a "say" in this country's leadership, I can't help but often take the good for granted in the middle of all the stupidity.  As far as I'm concerned, any money I have to pay in taxes is money wasted that I'm perfectly capable of putting to *good* use elsewhere (although I know it's necessary, of course).  We as individuals are irresponsible too, but at least there's some innate level of accountability there.

Anyway, the type of "progressive taxation" that I assume you're endorsing has no effect on income disparities, and it promotes mediocrity.  IMO.  Sorry, I didn't have much time to type this up.  I'll try to respond again later tonight.

-J

[Seventh Son]

Is there some way to prevent ainatamoore from seeing this thread?

God I hope so.

[Adami]

Is there some way to prevent ainatamoore from seeing this thread?

God I hope so.

Why? What would he say?

[Seventh Son]

Is there some way to prevent ainatamoore from seeing this thread?

God I hope so.

Why? What would he say?

That's what I don't want to know.

[Adami]

Well that seems random. Fair enough though.

[rumborak]

You know, ideally we could put taxation on a first-principle kind of basis, but let's face it, there is no real connection between what people earn and what the government needs to maintain the services the public has voted to uphold.
So, all the design of tax codes comes down to is "who is hurt the least?" And of course rich people are less hurt by taxes the more they make, In the sense that the loss becomes ever more "ephemeral" to them.

rumborak

[juice]

If the government keeps spending the way they do then all the taxes they collect won't do anything no matter how much they collect.

[soundgarden]

First of all, surely you don't honestly think that everyone's income is based on some universal hierarchy of people working under them?  But even if it did, this makes no sense.  That CEO has infinitely more responsibilities than a mechanic, and (presumably) he "earned" his position through hard work, education, experience, and other qualifications (I actually had trouble typing that without gagging, but it is the going assumption).  Even if he is incompetent, unethical, or whatever, he IS responsible for the well-being of the company, and he's compensated accordingly.  I agree that contractual measures should be taken in the case that a company fails, the executives are liable to some extent.  But taxing them harder accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Yes I agree, he (and ideally speaking of course) earned his position, but that's irrelevant to my point.  However he got his job, he is now in a position where all of his decisions (or lack thereof) has a down ward effect on those under him (and thus on their families, i should add).  I definitely agree that he should be compensated more, a lot more in fact for the larger corporations and I fully understand the argument and justifications for competitive salaries for executives that can be exponentially higher than the lowly workers.

Contractual measures set forth by whom? The company?  A company's utmost goal is only one: profit.  There is of course no problem with this, but in search for profit the interest of the people within the company take a back seat which brings me to....

Like I said above, I agree for the most part, but it has nothing to do with taxation.

....the government.  If GM were to fail, over 300,000 people would be out of work.  The government HAS to protect its citizens.  It needs to establish systems to protect its people in the event as such.

The contracts between GM (or Ford? i honestly forget) and its Unions resulted a bloated pension packages for the workers which was a significant expense for the company.   The stress of the expense aided in the near collapse.  What would have happen if the government didn't bail them out?  The pensions would have vanish with their jobs.

Taxing the higher income makers more provides the funds to the government to protect those who would be directly affected by bad decision making of those very same higher income makers.  

If a person's goal is to make millions of dollars, they have the freedom to bust their asses to do it.  If their investments and practices are sound, they necessarily contribute to society through their efforts economically (by purchasing capital, etc.) in ways that *do* indirectly effect those who earn less.

What do you mean by "sound" investments? Legal? Wise?  

I invest in GM and in a shareholder's meeting voted on a (now in retrospect) bad decision which led to the failure of the company.  Did I make a positive contribution?  I agree that people are to have the freedom to make millions, and in fact make limitless amounts.  However, my main point is repeated that their millions and billions are proportional to the amount of people under them.  How many people would be affected negatively is Warren Buffet (in a crazed madness for example) decides to liquidate all his assets and destroy all his earnings?

I completely agree, but that is a matter of personal philosophy that I wouldn't shoulder others with if they wish to reject it.

No its not personal.  A strong economy is a summation of all the individuals industries and thus all the individual people.  A healthy and capable populace positively reinforces an economy, wouldn't you agree?   I fully support the government taxing me higher to provide health care, education, etc. easier and cheaper to the masses.  What good is an executive without knowledgeable and healthy workers?

Totally disagree with the bolded.  I'm no conspiracy theorist (just a cynic), but I have little to no faith in my government to do any of this.  It may have the infrastructure, but it continually demonstrates its incompetence with its decision making in every area.  

I should have said  that the government has "BETTER infrastructure" to determine need.  Of course we see incompetence, inefficiencies, abuse, etc... but what other option do we have?

I understand the want to be completely responsible for ones own finances.  However, neither you nor I have the ability to determine the effective "state" of the nation and which areas require need and which have too much.   Are you aware of the small town in North Dakota that may need new roads?  Or new textbooks for their students?  I know the system is flawed massively, but what would your alternate solution be?

(sorry for being all over the place in my original post; i typed it half drunk lol)

[XJDenton]

A progressive tax is good for the free market.

[William Wallace]

I don't understand the assumption the statement "government has to take care of its people." Why does it have to? And can it do this? The only way it bails out anybody or provides a safety net is by taxing other people, taking money out of the economy. There is no magical government bank account that can be accessed when times are tough; there are only taxpayers and the printing press. Utilizing either has long term implications that often get lost in these discussions about "protecting the people."

One last point: If I think up an idea for a product or service that could make rich and hire others to turn that idea into something tangible, at a wage they agree to work for, why do I owe them anything beyond that?

[j]

First of all, surely you don't honestly think that everyone's income is based on some universal hierarchy of people working under them?  But even if it did, this makes no sense.  That CEO has infinitely more responsibilities than a mechanic, and (presumably) he "earned" his position through hard work, education, experience, and other qualifications (I actually had trouble typing that without gagging, but it is the going assumption).  Even if he is incompetent, unethical, or whatever, he IS responsible for the well-being of the company, and he's compensated accordingly.  I agree that contractual measures should be taken in the case that a company fails, the executives are liable to some extent.  But taxing them harder accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Yes I agree, he (and ideally speaking of course) earned his position, but that's irrelevant to my point.  However he got his job, he is now in a position where all of his decisions (or lack thereof) has a down ward effect on those under him (and thus on their families, i should add).  I definitely agree that he should be compensated more, a lot more in fact for the larger corporations and I fully understand the argument and justifications for competitive salaries for executives that can be exponentially higher than the lowly workers.

Those people have chosen to work for that company, and have agreed to work for a set wage, benefits, etc.  The CEO is not responsible for their well-being.  He is hurt when the company fails too.  Sure, he for one will be fine if his company goes under, but he's being compensated more for a reason, and that reason is *not* because he will be forced to pay out of pocket the pension plans of every employee beneath him in the event of a disaster (and NOT in the event of a disaster, as you propose).  Income disparities are a reality.

Like I said above, I agree for the most part, but it has nothing to do with taxation.

....the government.  If GM were to fail, over 300,000 people would be out of work.  The government HAS to protect its citizens.  It needs to establish systems to protect its people in the event as such.

Regardless of what you think the government should do, a "progressive" tax is not a solution to this problem.

The contracts between GM (or Ford? i honestly forget) and its Unions resulted a bloated pension packages for the workers which was a significant expense for the company.   The stress of the expense aided in the near collapse.  What would have happen if the government didn't bail them out?  The pensions would have vanish with their jobs.

This is a different issue altogether.  I won't get into it except to say that we probably just disagree on the source of the money used for the bailouts.

Taxing the higher income makers more provides the funds to the government to protect those who would be directly affected by bad decision making of those very same higher income makers.  

No, the two are unrelated in practice.  What about the companies that DON'T fail?  Why are those executives being taxed exorbitantly?  Now if there were some government mandated collection from them *only* in the event of bankruptcy (or whatever) as a "safety net" of sorts, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

If a person's goal is to make millions of dollars, they have the freedom to bust their asses to do it.  If their investments and practices are sound, they necessarily contribute to society through their efforts economically (by purchasing capital, etc.) in ways that *do* indirectly effect those who earn less.

What do you mean by "sound" investments? Legal? Wise?  

I invest in GM and in a shareholder's meeting voted on a (now in retrospect) bad decision which led to the failure of the company.  Did I make a positive contribution?  I agree that people are to have the freedom to make millions, and in fact make limitless amounts.

That would be a bad investment.  Not sure what your point is here.

However, my main point is repeated that their millions and billions are proportional to the amount of people under them.  How many people would be affected negatively is Warren Buffet (in a crazed madness for example) decides to liquidate all his assets and destroy all his earnings?

Again, I don't know why you consider the bolded to be a universal truth?  Sure, in the examples you've used of corporate CEOs it *may* apply, but there are plenty of high earners who have very few--if any--people working under them.  It doesn't make sense to make everyone responsible for anyone who might directly or indirectly be affected by their bad decision making.  And to simply base the tax on the size of the income makes even less sense.

As for the Warren Buffett thing, it doesn't matter.  The people have chosen to put their money there and there is risk associated with any such decision.

I completely agree, but that is a matter of personal philosophy that I wouldn't shoulder others with if they wish to reject it.

No its not personal.  A strong economy is a summation of all the individuals industries and thus all the individual people.  A healthy and capable populace positively reinforces an economy, wouldn't you agree?   I fully support the government taxing me higher to provide health care, education, etc. easier and cheaper to the masses.  What good is an executive without knowledgeable and healthy workers?

Of course I agree that a healthy and capable populace is crucial.  And I am of course happy to pay taxes to a government on which I can depend to use those taxes wisely.  Even though that is not the case, I'm even happy to pay taxes to an inept government simply for providing me with the freedom and opportunity to live and work here.  But it doesn't follow that I then support income-based taxation.  I have yet to see evidence that a "progressive" tax is even correlated with a "healthy and capable populace".

Of course we see incompetence, inefficiencies, abuse, etc... but what other option do we have?

I know the system is flawed massively, but what would your alternate solution be?

Statements like these kill me, dude.  The other option we have is reform.  And since the route to that is a total clusterfuck of bureaucracy which seldom accomplishes anything, I would rather not throw any more money at the federal government than is absolutely necessary.  Of course we have to pay taxes for things like public goods, state services, etc.  But it's in the arena of social programs where the government's incompetence really shines through.  It isn't that I disagree with them in principle, it's that I have no confidence that they can be effectively carried out or implemented.  Make no mistake, much of our tax money simply goes to waste in the end, not that the lack of funds has ever put a damper on federal spending.

-J

[Perpetual Change]

I don't understand the assumption the statement "government has to take care of its people." Why does it have to?

Because, when it doesn't, people will replace said government. This was the danger most of Europe was in in the 19th and early 20th century. And if it weren't for the passing of key progressive legislation in the USA, we may have had much more of an upheaval at that time too.

Not saying it's fair. That's just how the world works.

[El Barto]

I don't understand the assumption the statement "government has to take care of its people." Why does it have to? And can it do this?

Even the most raving and drooling Libertarians recognize the need for some government to protect the citizens.  The issues isn't whether it should exist, but how much is required.

[William Wallace]

I don't understand the assumption the statement "government has to take care of its people." Why does it have to? And can it do this?

Even the most raving and drooling Libertarians recognize the need for some government to protect the citizens.  The issues isn't whether it should exist, but how much is required.

Yes, but it's things like road maintenance, utilities etc. None of which require a progressive tax.

I don't understand the assumption the statement "government has to take care of its people." Why does it have to?

Because, when it doesn't, people will replace said government. This was the danger most of Europe was in in the 19th and early 20th century. And if it weren't for the passing of key progressive legislation in the USA, we may have had much more of an upheaval at that time too.

Not saying it's fair. That's just how the world works.

That's a long conversation. But I would argue that all the upheaval was caused by ineffective governments, not necessarily governments that were too small.

[Perpetual Change]

That's a long conversation. But I would argue that all the upheaval was caused by ineffective governments, not necessarily governments that were too small.

I'm not talking about size, but the government's attitude toward its citizenry. If someone put forward an argument and means to install a small government that could ensure people have a decent standard of living (ability to better themselves, have recreation, afford food and medicine, etc), I'd be all for it.

[El Barto]

I don't understand the assumption the statement "government has to take care of its people." Why does it have to? And can it do this?

Even the most raving and drooling Libertarians recognize the need for some government to protect the citizens.  The issues isn't whether it should exist, but how much is required.

Yes, but it's things like road maintenance, utilities etc. None of which require a progressive tax.

It still requires taxation--end of story.  Once taxation is a requirement, then you have to figure out the best way to go about it.  I maintain that a progressive tax is the better option.  If you wanna argue that Uncle Sammy is taking and spending too much, then so be it, but even if we're to lower taxes across the board, it should still be curved towards the wealthier. 

[William Wallace]

I don't understand the assumption the statement "government has to take care of its people." Why does it have to? And can it do this?

Even the most raving and drooling Libertarians recognize the need for some government to protect the citizens.  The issues isn't whether it should exist, but how much is required.

Yes, but it's things like road maintenance, utilities etc. None of which require a progressive tax.

It still requires taxation--end of story.  Once taxation is a requirement, then you have to figure out the best way to go about it.  I maintain that a progressive tax is the better option.  If you wanna argue that Uncle Sammy is taking and spending too much, then so be it, but even if we're to lower taxes across the board, it should still be curved towards the wealthier. 

Alright, I'll compromise on this one. If we could reduce the size of government and how much it spends to something resembling the government laid out in the Constitution, I'd be fine with your suggestion.

[soundgarden]

Those people have chosen to work for that company, and have agreed to work for a set wage, benefits, etc.  The CEO is not responsible for their well-being.  He is hurt when the company fails too.  Sure, he for one will be fine if his company goes under, but he's being compensated more for a reason, and that reason is *not* because he will be forced to pay out of pocket the pension plans of every employee beneath him in the event of a disaster (and NOT in the event of a disaster, as you propose).  Income disparities are a reality.

People can choose a company, but the fact remains the same that a person MUST* enter the corporate establishment .  An agreement is made.  They make it with regards to their expenditures, personal desires, life they would like to have, etc.  The agreement established mandates the CEO to live up to his end if the worker lives up to his.  If the CEO fails the company the worker will be out of wages.  It can be completely the CEO's fault, yet the worker has to suffer?  I absolutely do not agree, if the CEO does not live up to the agreement he has as responsibility (economic and moral) to those he now placed in a dire situation.  

Five years working in a company, the CEO makes a killing and is able to save a ton.  A normal worker (by current american rates) has the worlds worst saving rate .  The company fails after five years and the CEO goes to the Bahamas for vacation and all the regular workers are now squabbling just to survive.  Is that fair?

And i repeat my point that corporations are not apt to make compensatory agreements for failures because the "for profit" nature of corporations does not place great interest in the livelihood of people.  This is where the government has to step in

*freelancers have a slew of other concerns which replaces the constraints of corporations

This is a different issue altogether.  I won't get into it except to say that we probably just disagree on the source of the money used for the bailouts.

Sorry, my point with that was to point to my great distaste in unions and what they do to this nation is due to the tax and government aide structures that either leaves people in the dark, or in an instance ruins someone's life.  I want unions to be abolished, and the only way is for more security for the populace from the government.  

What about the companies that DON'T fail?  Why are those executives being taxed exorbitantly?  

For the event that they do.  Companies can, and will fail. Its a matter of time for which no one can really predict.  You cannot simply look at financial trends.  

Look what happened to BP this year.  WHat if they failed to cap the well?  What if the oceanic currents are now currents of oil?  I doubt anyone would buy anything from BP.  

For the workers sake, its better to be safe.

Now this raises the second concern which I didn't want to discuss at the moment but this example clearly shows.  What if a CEO's incompentent management led to a environmental disaster.  What if BP didn't have the assests to sell to fund the cleanup and the capping.  The governemnt would have to step in using the tax payers money to pay for a CEO's mismanagement.

Is that fair to the average tax payer?

Now if there were some government mandated collection from them *only* in the event of bankruptcy (or whatever) as a "safety net" of sorts, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Interesting thought.  mmm, let me think about that

Again, I don't know why you consider the bolded to be a universal truth?  Sure, in the examples you've used of corporate CEOs it *may* apply, but there are plenty of high earners who have very few--if any--people working under them.  It doesn't make sense to make everyone responsible for anyone who might directly or indirectly be affected by their bad decision making.  And to simply base the tax on the size of the income makes even less sense.

Well my examples have been extreme for effect.  Of course the tax rate would be progressive.  Someone who has a 5 people under him (my boss for example) would pay A LOT less than Steve Jobs for example.

And I never intended for it to be based solely on income, they are other factors.  But income is generally a good indication of responsibility.  Do you disagree?

Of course I agree that a healthy and capable populace is crucial.  And I am of course happy to pay taxes to a government on which I can depend to use those taxes wisely.  Even though that is not the case, I'm even happy to pay taxes to an inept government simply for providing me with the freedom and opportunity to live and work here.  But it doesn't follow that I then support income-based taxation.  I have yet to see evidence that a "progressive" tax is even correlated with a "healthy and capable populace".

Well clearly a fixed tax rate will provide a government with fewer funds thus allowing for less services.

What would your alternate be?

Statements like these kill me, dude.  The other option we have is reform.

Aye, sorry man.  You are right.  Very stupid for me to say that.  Reform is the route, but I guess I didn't jump to that because of.....

And since the route to that is a total clusterfuck of bureaucracy which seldom accomplishes anything, I would rather not throw any more money at the federal government than is absolutely necessary.  Of course we have to pay taxes for things like public goods, state services, etc.  But it's in the arena of social programs where the government's incompetence really shines through.  It isn't that I disagree with them in principle, it's that I have no confidence that they can be effectively carried out or implemented.  Make no mistake, much of our tax money simply goes to waste in the end, not that the lack of funds has ever put a damper on federal spending.

... ^ that.  Inefficiencies and incompetence are a large source of waste. but I know we can come up with a better system that benefits the people as well as the corporate sector without dismantling governemnt.  Europe is capable of doing this, I know America can.

[j]

Good points.  I think I understand where most of your arguments are coming from, I just don't really endorse such a tax scheme in principle, and I'm skeptical that the benefits in practice are anything close to what is usually preached.

-J

[ainamotore]

All taxation should be voluntary. That would be the moral way to go. There would be no victims and no confiscation of private property. If there were a voluntary system, I would agree to pay about 15% of my income.

[Seventh Son]

All taxation should be voluntary. That would be the moral way to go. There would be no victims and no confiscation of private property. If there were a voluntary system, I would agree to pay about 15% of my income.

Most people would refuse to pay any taxes at all and we wouldn't be able to do anything that uses taxpayer dollars. And before you throw a shit about how "social programs" are evil, we wouldn't be able to pay for our expansive military, or have any police forces at all, etc.

No offense, but something like that would NEVER work.

[GuineaPig]

All taxation should be voluntary. That would be the moral way to go. There would be no victims and no confiscation of private property. If there were a voluntary system, I would agree to pay about 15% of my income.

There's no way this system would be abused.

[ainamotore]

All taxation should be voluntary. That would be the moral way to go. There would be no victims and no confiscation of private property. If there were a voluntary system, I would agree to pay about 15% of my income.

Most people would refuse to pay any taxes at all and we wouldn't be able to do anything that uses taxpayer dollars. And before you throw a shit about how "social programs" are evil, we wouldn't be able to pay for our expansive military, or have any police forces at all, etc.

No offense, but something like that would NEVER work.

I bet everyone on this forum would agree to pay something. I'd be good with about 15%. However, if we were at war against a legitimate enemy, I would up my contribution dramatically.

As to the argument that no one would pay? I disagree. Most people would pay. And guess what? If most people wouldn't pay, then our society is worthless and is better off dead anyway.

The U.S. budget would be simple: whatever the citizens voluntarily sent. No deficit spending would be possible. Every program would be paid for. The job of politicians would be convince us to send more due to legitimate needs. If they get out of line, they would find that the bank balance was dropping. If there were a Katrina or an Islamic attack, the coffers would be brimming with dollars to combat the threat. In peacetime, the citizens would keep most of their money.

Private charity would flourish unbelievably. People would have tons of disposable dollars to give to their favorite charities. That would erase street bums and other useless people for the most part.

Most importantly: No immoral confiscation of one person's wealth for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another.

[Seventh Son]

All taxation should be voluntary. That would be the moral way to go. There would be no victims and no confiscation of private property. If there were a voluntary system, I would agree to pay about 15% of my income.

Most people would refuse to pay any taxes at all and we wouldn't be able to do anything that uses taxpayer dollars. And before you throw a shit about how "social programs" are evil, we wouldn't be able to pay for our expansive military, or have any police forces at all, etc.

No offense, but something like that would NEVER work.

I bet everyone on this forum would agree to pay something. I'd be good with about 15%. However, if we were at war against a legitimate enemy, I would up my contribution dramatically.

As to the argument that no one would pay? I disagree. Most people would pay. And guess what? If most people wouldn't pay, then our society is worthless and is better off dead anyway.

The U.S. budget would be simple: whatever the citizens voluntarily sent. No deficit spending would be possible. Every program would be paid for. The job of politicians would be convince us to send more due to legitimate needs. If they get out of line, they would find that the bank balance was dropping. If there were a Katrina or an Islamic attack, the coffers would be brimming with dollars to combat the threat. In peacetime, the citizens would keep most of their money.

Private charity would flourish unbelievably. People would have tons of disposable dollars to give to their favorite charities. That would erase street bums and other useless people for the most part.

Most importantly: No immoral confiscation of one person's wealth for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually believe the things you're saying.

[Perpetual Change]

I bet everyone on this forum would agree to pay something. I'd be good with about 15%. However, if we were at war against a legitimate enemy, I would up my contribution dramatically.

Nearly every civilization in history failed at least in part because the nobility decided they didn't need to pay taxes anymore.

Most importantly: No immoral confiscation of one person's wealth for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another.

So, basically: "Our nation birthed you. Our defenses kept you safe. You benefited from our public works system and you used our roads. We educated you. Our government used your forefathers tax dollars on programs that would keep the playing field equal, so you could succeed based on your merit rather than your social class. Now that you're wealthy, it'd be immoral for us to ask you to pay your share. So keep it. Pay only what you want. You owe us no return on our investment. Keep every cent you ever made. You deserve it."

[ainamotore]

"Nobility" would not exist in a free system because no citizens would have the power to compel other citizens to turn over their wealth.

[Perpetual Change]

"Nobility" would not exist in a free system because no citizens would have the power to compel other citizens to turn over their wealth.

That's ridiculous. Those who own the means of production will always be wealthier than those who do not. Given free reign, those who own the means of production would become a permanent upper class. And if you take away government military and police force, those who own the means to production would also simply create their own.

[Seventh Son]

"Nobility" would not exist in a free system because no citizens would have the power to compel other citizens to turn over their wealth.

You honestly think in the states that rich people can't compel poor people to do what they want?

[ainamotore]

You honestly think in the states that rich people can't compel poor people to do what they want?

In a free system, there is no compulsion. Rich people could ask poor people for their time in return for a mutually agreeable wage. It would be voluntary on the part of both parties.

[Perpetual Change]

Those who have the means to produce will unite with one another to further establish their own dominance. Together, they would form new, worse types of government. A "pure" free market would eventually turn into a new, ultimate form of statism: non-representative based rule by corporations or a group of corporations with privately owned and operated militaries.

It's time to put "Atlas Shrugged" and Ayn Rand's Corporate-Fascist pipe-dream to rest, Animatore. The goal is a smaller, liberty-protecting government; not annihilation of government in favor of an anarcho-capitalist rule by corporate bordellos.

People collectively ought to be able to work through the government to ensure that the playing field remains equal. That's what's necessary for a "true" meritocracy.

[XJDenton]

Voluntary in the sense that they can choose freely if they wish to work for a shitty wage or instead starve to death.