Progressive Tax

[ainamotore]

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.

Equality of income and result is not a goal of a free system. Wealth and achievement are the responsibility of the individual.

[Perpetual Change]

Income based on merit is the goal, and much fairer than what you propse. You can't have that in your system.

[Chino]

I am for it. Isn't the increase from like 34% to 39% or something like that. There have been times in our country where that has gotten to 70% and at one time 90%! Sorry some people will only be making 11.5 million dollars instead of 12.

[ainamotore]

Income based on merit is the goal, and much fairer than what you propse. You can't have that in your system.

That is not the goal. The goal is a moral political system.  A system where one citizen is not given the power to confiscate the wealth of another citizen without their permission or agreement. A system where one citizen may ask of another citizen, but may not demand.

I do not really care about anyone's individual income. That is a private matter.

[Perpetual Change]

The system isn't moral if some people have less of a chance simply because of their social standing at birth.

[ainamotore]

I am for it. Isn't the increase from like 34% to 39% or something like that. There have been times in our country where that has gotten to 70% and at one time 90%! Sorry some people will only be making 11.5 million dollars instead of 12.

This is a perfect argument for a voluntary system.

Chino has arbitrarily decided that a citizen making 12 million should be happy with 11.5 million, and that he is in favor of compulsion to achieve that decision.

DOES IT GET ANY CLEARER THAN THIS?

The numbers are irrelevant, look at the concept. Isn't this a naked form of evil?

[Seventh Son]

I am for it. Isn't the increase from like 34% to 39% or something like that. There have been times in our country where that has gotten to 70% and at one time 90%! Sorry some people will only be making 11.5 million dollars instead of 12.

This is a perfect argument for a voluntary system.

Chino has arbitrarily decided that a citizen making 12 million should be happy with 11.5 million, and that he is in favor of compulsion to achieve that decision.

DOES IT GET ANY CLEARER THAN THIS?

The numbers are irrelevant, look at the concept. Isn't this a naked form of evil?

I'm at the point where I stop taking you seriously and simply laugh.

[ainamotore]

The system isn't moral if some people have less of a chance simply because of their social standing at birth.

Social standing has nothing to do with voluntary taxation. One's social standing is their own responsibility.

[Perpetual Change]

The system isn't moral if some people have less of a chance simply because of their social standing at birth.

Social standing has nothing to do with voluntary taxation. One's social standing is their own responsibility.

People are responsible for their social standing while they're still in the womb? OK. Yeah, that's FAIR.

This is a joke.

[XJDenton]

Why do people have a right to the property they currently have seeing as the current distribution of wealth is based on a multitude of examples of forced labour, forced land and material occupation? If you truly believe in the right to private property then the current distribution must also be immoral by nature.

[Adami]

Oh god this thread has gotten amazing. And, it gave me a great phrase to use "Naked form of evil".

[Perpetual Change]

Why do people have a right to the property they have?

Well, here's the good thing. The upper-class won't pay taxes if they have the option, so under animatore's system us heathen hoardes of laborers who weren't able to raise our social standings prior to taking of first breaths will be able to ransack/rape/pillage/rebel without any sort of police or military force to stop us (as has happened several times in history already because those with power and money didn't give a shit about the conditions the citizenry were living in). We'd do it, because us ignorant masses of working class people are immoral anyway, and probably should have been culled long ago.

[ainamotore]

People are responsible for their social standing while they're still in the womb? OK. Yeah, that's FAIR.
This is a joke.

Not at all. Social standing is up to each individual person based on their own quality and behavior. The important thing is that there is a free system in place when they are born.

Voluntary taxation would be the bedrock of such a system.

[Perpetual Change]

Again, the system isn't TRULY FREE if some people are DISADVANTAGED from the START.

[Adami]

Not at all. Social standing is up to each individual person based on their own quality and behavior. The important thing is that there is a free system in place when they are born.

Voluntary taxation would be the bedrock of such a system.

Here's the problem, say you have two people, Joe and Ariich. Both are on equal footing socially. They each have say 100 dollars, no land and no assets. Well by the end of their lives, through hard work and good decisions, Joe now has 100,000 dollars, and a good house. While Ariich has 10 dollars and a shack.

Now, they each have a child, Joes child is born with 100,000 dollars and a good house, while Ariichs child has 10 dollars and a shack. Now, Joe takes that 100,000 dollars and buys land, or whatever and by the time he dies is worth 10,000,000 dollars and a mansion and lots of land. Ariichs child couldn't have done that with what he had, so he ended up with 100 dollars and a mediocre house due to hard work.

Joes child has a child, who now has 10,000,000 dollars, a mansion and lots of land, while ariichs grandchild has 100 dollars and a mediocre house. Now, do they both have equal oppurtunity? Of course not. And they didn't earn any of it, they were simply born into their circumstances.

This is one of the problems with your fantasy land.

[ainamotore]

Well, here's the good thing. The upper-class won't pay taxes if they have the option, so under animatore's system us heathen hoardes of laborers who weren't able to raise our social standings prior to taking of first breaths will be able to ransack/rape/pillage/rebel without any sort of police or military force to stop us (as has happened several times in history already because those with power and money didn't give a shit about the conditions the citizenry were living in). We'd do it, because us ignorant masses of working class people are immoral anyway, and probably should have been culled long ago.

Are you speaking for yourself? Would you not contribute a portion of your income to the goverment of your country in a free system? You would not be forced to, I am just wondering.

I would. And I think almost everyone would. I live in the greatest country in the world, and would consider it a civic responsibility to voluntarily pay some taxation to keep my country free, and defended.

Everyone on this forum would probably feel the same way and would pay something. But if not, that would be their right.

[Seventh Son]

People are responsible for their social standing while they're still in the womb? OK. Yeah, that's FAIR.
This is a joke.

Not at all. Social standing is up to each individual person based on their own quality and behavior. The important thing is that there is a free system in place when they are born.

Voluntary taxation would be the bedrock of such a system.

[Adami]

Well, here's the good thing. The upper-class won't pay taxes if they have the option, so under animatore's system us heathen hoardes of laborers who weren't able to raise our social standings prior to taking of first breaths will be able to ransack/rape/pillage/rebel without any sort of police or military force to stop us (as has happened several times in history already because those with power and money didn't give a shit about the conditions the citizenry were living in). We'd do it, because us ignorant masses of working class people are immoral anyway, and probably should have been culled long ago.

Are you speaking for yourself? Would you not contribute a portion of your income to the goverment of your country in a free system? You would not be forced to, I am just wondering.

I would. And I think almost everyone would. I live in the greatest country in the world, and would consider it a civic responsibility to voluntarily pay some taxation to keep my country free, and defended.

Everyone on this forum would probably feel the same way and would pay something. But if not, that would be their right.

I think you drastically underestimate how selfish human beings are. Some people would pay, many would not.

[Perpetual Change]

I would. And I think almost everyone would. I live in the greatest country in the world, and would consider it a civic responsibility to voluntarily pay some taxation to keep my country free, and defended.

History has explicitly proven that you are in the extreme minority.

I think you drastically underestimate how selfish human beings are. Some people would pay, many would not.

He's also drastically overestimating how much I'd have to give.

I assure you, it's currently in the negatives.

[Chino]

People are responsible for their social standing while they're still in the womb? OK. Yeah, that's FAIR.
This is a joke.

Not at all. Social standing is up to each individual person based on their own quality and behavior.

I'd like to see how you'd handle your quality of life if you were brought up in some of the slums and ghettos we have in North America.

Little story.

I used to be very stereotypical, and honestly gave African Americans a lot of shit based on how they looked and what not. There was one dude in particular that I would always just think, what the hell is that guys problem, he looks like a fool and is going no where in life, he's going to end up spending his life in jail. Well, my second year of college I am not assigned a roommate, and on the third day of school this guy comes through the door. It was clear after a few weeks that all my assumptions were 100% correct. However, we both smoked weed, which led to a lot of conversation in the bathroom. After a while, he started trusting me and started to get into his childhood a lot more. He was so poor growing up, the bottom floor of his house was literally dirt. They had dozens of rats coming and going as they pleased. His dad used to beat the shit out of everyone in the family and got put in jail when he was like 2. When he was six he found his mom hunched over on the toilet with 3 needles sticking out of her arm. She lived, and then he found her a year later dead on the bathroom floor, just this time no needles. After hearing about all the shit this dude had to go through by the time he was 16, I couldn't blame him for turning out the way he did. I honestly think I would have ended up the exact same way. At that point I didn't look down upon him, I actually felt more sorry for the guy than anything. You have to give some people the benefit of the doubt, not all, but a lot more than you'd think.

[Perpetual Change]

He's from Jersey. He knows first hand that those people born in raised in Camden and Elizabeth and Newark stayed there for their whole lives because they deserved it, and had just as much of a chance as the people from Cherry Hill and Evergreen Terrace to make a life for themselves.

[Sigz]

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

I'm so, so glad he saw this thread.

[ainamotore]

I think you drastically underestimate how selfish human beings are. Some people would pay, many would not.

A very religious view of man. That we are all innately depraved and selfish. I feel the opposite is true. We are innately good and innately eager to help each other.

Many religions have a system of tithing of income. People have no problem forking over money to the less fortunate. WHEN THEY ASK FOR IT.

DEMAND IT? Whole different story.

[Chino]

I think you drastically underestimate how selfish human beings are. Some people would pay, many would not.

A very religious view of man. That we are all innately depraved and selfish. I feel the opposite is true. We are innately good and innately eager to help each other.

We are.... during the process of our evolution, the one who kept the most supplies and resources for himself survived...

Many religions have a system of tithing of income. People have no problem forking over money to the less fortunate. WHEN THEY ASK FOR IT.

Thats because they believe they will go to hell otherwise. When I was young and my family went to church, the church sent us a letter saying that we were not giving enough. They said based on our annual income we should have been donating such and such amount. We didn't have to worry about it because I eventually got us excommunicated a few weeks later..

[j]

Here's the problem, say you have two people, Joe and Ariich. Both are on equal footing socially. They each have say 100 dollars, no land and no assets. Well by the end of their lives, through hard work and good decisions, Joe now has 100,000 dollars, and a good house. While Ariich has 10 dollars and a shack.

Now, they each have a child, Joes child is born with 100,000 dollars and a good house, while Ariichs child has 10 dollars and a shack. Now, Joe takes that 100,000 dollars and buys land, or whatever and by the time he dies is worth 10,000,000 dollars and a mansion and lots of land. Ariichs child couldn't have done that with what he had, so he ended up with 100 dollars and a mediocre house due to hard work.

Joes child has a child, who now has 10,000,000 dollars, a mansion and lots of land, while ariichs grandchild has 100 dollars and a mediocre house. Now, do they both have equal oppurtunity? Of course not. And they didn't earn any of it, they were simply born into their circumstances.

Why did Ariich end up with so little?  Are we assuming it's all due to bad luck and circumstance?

What if Joe busted his ass for his whole life and Ariich was a lazy, irresponsible bum.  So Joe's kids will have a nice inheritance from him thanks to his hard work.  Ariich's kids won't.  That's inequality, but that's life.  And life isn't fair.

Obviously I agree with you (particularly in extreme cases) that there are many people who are literally *stuck* where they're at and grossly disadvantaged from the outset, and that something must be done about it.  Like most things, there's a middle ground that is probably most reasonable.  Maybe some degree of "progressive" taxation is warranted.  There's no way to determine how much of a person's "disadvantages" are simply misfortune, and how much are their own fault.  You put everybody on a level playing field, some of 'em are gonna blow it on crack and booze and return to poverty while others are going to work hard to provide for their families.

And the "voluntary taxation" idea is totally ridiculous.  If you think that would be anything short of a complete and utter failure, you need to get out more.

-J

[Perpetual Change]

You didn't address the, animatore, because you can't:

It's time the throw out your copy of Atlas Shrugged, because you simply can't claim your system is the advantage of being "moral" and "fair" when it disadvantages some--heck, MOST-- people from start. 

[Adami]

Ariich ended up with less because he made bad decisions and Joe made better decisions. Two generations letter, his kids can make ANY decision and still end up unequal. This goes contrary to Aniwhatevers point that everyone has equal oppurtunity.


Also, for voluntary taxes. How often do you give to the homeless people you see on the street? Rarely? Most likely. We all give....maybe once in a great while. 99 times out of 100 we just pass them by. If voluntary taxes worked the same way, the system would fall apart.

[GuineaPig]

I don't think the system would fall apart completely.  But you'd have a government so reliant on "donations" for corporations that the country would be an oligarchy in all but name.

[Adami]

I don't think the system would fall apart completely.  But you'd have a government so reliant on "donations" for corporations that the country would be an oligarchy in all but name.

The system may not fall apart, but there would be chaos. Systematic Chaos.











BLISTERING!

[GuineaPig]

That's even worse.

[William Wallace]

You didn't address the, animatore, because you can't:

It's time the throw out your copy of Atlas Shrugged, because you simply can't claim your system is the advantage of being "moral" and "fair" when it disadvantages some--heck, MOST-- people from start. 

Equality of opportunity and outcome are two different things.

[Perpetual Change]

You didn't address the, animatore, because you can't:

It's time the throw out your copy of Atlas Shrugged, because you simply can't claim your system is the advantage of being "moral" and "fair" when it disadvantages some--heck, MOST-- people from start. 

Equality of opportunity and outcome are two different things.

I honestly don't see how you can truly have either without both. And, while I realize having both would be impossible to implement, I still fail to see why we can't have a government that promotes "true" competition through a realistic and fair tax-policy and regulations that are simple to understand and basic and few enough that they don't turn things into bureaucratic clusterfuck.

[slycordinator]

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.

[j]

You didn't address the, animatore, because you can't:

It's time the throw out your copy of Atlas Shrugged, because you simply can't claim your system is the advantage of being "moral" and "fair" when it disadvantages some--heck, MOST-- people from start. 

Equality of opportunity and outcome are two different things.

I honestly don't see how you can truly have either without both. And, while I realize having both would be impossible to implement, I still fail to see why we can't have a government that promotes "true" competition through a realistic and fair tax-policy and regulations that are simple to understand and basic and few enough that they don't turn things into bureaucratic clusterfuck.

Well, only certain elements of "opportunity" can be manipulated.  Even if a hypothetical government could establish mostly equal ground for all of its citizens initially, that doesn't guarantee anything regarding equality of outcome.

But I definitely agree about the current tax policy and bureaucracy, etc.

-J

[Perpetual Change]

I think the main problem I have with all of this is that the libertarian movement in the United States still reeks of Ayn Rand's thinly veiled corporate-fascist bullshit, no matter how far many have tried to distance themselves from it. The original proponents of the movement were much more altruistic than she was (even though in the societies in which they lived caring about lower class people was less important than it should have been for a citizen of the 20th century like Rand). Then again, that's not entirely surprising since Ayn Rand was the philosophical equivalent to a shock-jock.

Though I'm no libertarian, as someone who agrees more with libertarians than anything else out there I'd say that if your political position equates to "it's wrong for the collective to take any of anyone's money and everything else is a private matter" then you're kind of missing the point, which is to ensure the protection of civil liberties and the healthy competition and progress than can only from from a free-market.

Arguing in favor of removing all government regulations and social programs doesn't promote the free-market or increase personal liberty. It just allows the wealthy to stay wealthy by shutting down future competitors; it keeps those corporate entities currently in power at the top, and allows them to secure their perpetual dominance.  Which is all Ayn Rand really wanted when all is said and done.