Progressive Tax

[William Wallace]

I actually have no issues with some people having more than others. The idea I'm driving at here is that the market works best when the number of potential competitors is the greatest. The number of competitors is diminished when half of the population is made to struggle to stay above the poverty line.

I don't understand how you expect to improve the market's function by seriously inhibiting it. A market functions when free individuals exchange goods, services, ideas etc. in pursuit of their own self interest. That's the key to generating wealth - creating new technologies, investments, jobs; things that generally make life better. You're going to make the process "fair" by enacting higher taxes, entitlements and restrictions that reduce the market's capacity to grow. If anything, competition is diminished by government fiat (like bailing out lousy companies) than by capitalism itself.

The state can be the medium through which the "safety net" is operated, but it doesn't NEED to be. I just find it *highly* unlikely that ainamator's wealthy government-benefactors would decide that it was in their interest to breed a new generation of competitors.

Your assumption is incorrect. There doesn't need to be a safety net. Everyone's standard of living improves as a result of markets, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up. Adjusted for inflation, the price of almost everything is lower than in previous decades and the quality improved. This is almost never considered in discussions about the need for a safety net. 

What makes up the "safety net," though? That's a different conversation. It can be what you've called "special treatment," or it can be a simple provision of basic needs supplied by the government or another organization (food, water, medicine, housing, etc).

I still want to know why these must be provided by the state, and at everybody's expense.

As far as Rand goes, the article accurately described her fascist-like attitude towards her intellectual enemies and her own philosophy. She's a fascist, only her gods were corporate. Hence corporate fascist.

How was she a fascist? She never literally advocated murdering her opponents, as far as I know. And she was not an advocate of corporate welfare or any other kind of special treatment for any segment of society. Many of the antagonists in her books are rent-seeking businessmen, and she condemned the "type of businessmen who sought special advantages by government action" regularly. Yes, she was eccentric and developed a cult-like movement in many respects. But that doesn't relegate her ideas to the trashcan all by itself. 

[Perpetual Change]

I actually have no issues with some people having more than others. The idea I'm driving at here is that the market works best when the number of potential competitors is the greatest. The number of competitors is diminished when half of the population is made to struggle to stay above the poverty line.

I don't understand how you expect to improve the market's function by seriously inhibiting it. A market functions when free individuals exchange goods, services, ideas etc. in pursuit of their own self interest. That's the key to generating wealth - creating new technologies, investments, jobs; things that generally make life better. You're going to make the process "fair" by enacting higher taxes, entitlements and restrictions that reduce the market's capacity to grow.

How is giving people a chance "seriously inhibiting" the market? Part of the problem here, I think, is you're assuming these "wealth-generators" need to make a serious sacrifice to promote what I'm driving at, and I'd argue that if we pulled back government spending in "other" areas first we could accomplish what I'm seeking with minimal damage done to anyone's pockets.

Though I'd agree completely that, in the US at least, what I'm suggesting seems like excess because of the US gov's already bloated nature, and would never go about it the right way.

There doesn't need to be a safety net. Everyone's standard of living improves as a result of markets, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.

I still want to know why these must be provided by the state, and at everybody's expense.

That's fine, but the goal isn't simply increased standard of living. It's reward based on merit. And I've said a couple of times that it doesn't have to be the state. I'm leaving it up to you to decide who else it could be.

You may think the whole "reward based on merit" is irrelevant. Fine. We can agree to disagree. But remember, it was analmater who brought up "fairness," not me.

Yes, she was eccentric and developed a cult-like movement in many respects. But that doesn't relegate her ideas to the trashcan all by itself.  

It relegates her ideas to the trashcan when you realize she wasn't saying anything original, just rehashing older ideas with her typically bad and nonconstructive attitude and abandoning them when it was convenient for whatever corporate suck-ups or cause she was tied to at the time.

[William Wallace]

New Reason article about this very subject.

https://reason.com/archives/2010/09/30/taxing-the-rich

PT, what kind pf sending cuts are you talking about? Why raise taxes if you can more efficiently spend money you already bring in? And what is reward based on merit? Sounds like you're assuming that rich people are just a little more lucky than the rest of us, and we need to level the playing field. But I could be wrong.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm not arguing for a tax-raise. The fact that people who live in many other nations get more services than we do in the US and pay a far less for them says a lot, I think. That whole point IS spending money more efficiently. The first step being ending the expensive, never-ending fiasco in the middle-east.

We should be paying a lot less. In fact, I'd argue against any politician that thinks higher taxes are the answer. If we ended the wars and took a real good look at where our money is actually going (my two main concerns as a voter), I think we'd find that it's possible to have a government that's not too big, but offers help to those people that genuinely need it.

Aside from the war expense, which is obvious the first thing that needs to go, I've seen first hand far too many times the types of people that are collecting unemployment, or have the state paying their college tuition, etc etc. You can't tell me that it's not possible to do better, regardless of how much I may share in your pessimism towards the US's ability to help anyone.

[William Wallace]

I'm not arguing for a tax-raise. The fact that people who live in many other nations get more services than we do in the US and pay a far less for them says a lot, I think. That whole point IS spending money more efficiently. The first step being ending the expensive, never-ending fiasco in the middle-east.

We should be paying a lot less. In fact, I'd argue against any politician that thinks higher taxes are the answer. If we ended the wars and took a real good look at where our money is actually going (my two main concerns as a voter), I think we'd find that it's possible to have a government that's not too big, but offers help to those people that genuinely need it.

Aside from the war expense, which is obvious the first thing that needs to go, I've seen first hand far too many times the types of people that are collecting unemployment, or have the state paying their college tuition, etc etc. You can't tell me that it's not possible to do better, regardless of how much I may share in your pessimism towards the US's ability to help anyone.

We're not as far apart as I thought. Honestly, I'd be alright with making the changes you mentioned, though it's not enough. 

[jsem]

I think we should have everyone taxed in the same exact bracket. Give a flat percentage and allow for no deductions and such.

This seems, to be, to be the most "fair" in that everyone contributes equally. Also, with removing deductions and such, you reduce any need for a progressive tax, as there's no longer a bunch of people doing their damndest to get out of paying altogether.

This is the case in Slovakia, they have a 19% flat tax. This made sure that there were a bunch of foreign investors in the country and it has had an extremely rapid economic growth in comparison to other countries that left the ideals of communism in the 90s.

[El Barto]

I just now decided to peruse this thread in light of Ainamotore's recent ban, and I think he was on to something.  Of course the voluntary taxation thing is silly, but the opt in/out aspect is very intriguing.  As we all know, I think our experiment with democracy was a resounding failure.  Politicians are all corrupt liars, and rarely do things that are in the interests of those who elect them.  However, if the people actually had some direct control over their actions, via purse-strings, that might actually empower the people (yes, I know that I think the people are fucking stupid, I'll get to that). 

Hypothetically, what would happen if we came up with a system where everybody still paid taxes, flat or progressive-whatever, but had the ability to opt in or out of categories?  One option would be to send your check with no strings, an option plenty of people would choose.  The other option is to direct your money.  Set up a system where one has to select a minimum of programs, let's say five (out of hundreds) with a minimum contribution to the first five, like maybe 10%.  Plenty of people would choose not to fund the kill-brown-people program.  Others would give the maximum 60%.  Personally,  I'd prefer not to be funding abstinence only education, since I find it morally reprehensible.  I'm sure others would prefer to opt out of stem cell research and other such Godless endeavors.  Would we still be fighting two wars if defense was de-funded by 25% due to the wars being unpopular? 

I don't know how this would work,  and it's certainly simplistic, but it sure seems like there should be a way, and I don't see how it could be any less effective.  If the people can't control the fucktards they elect to office, they should be able to control the money.  What are the downsides?