Progressive Tax

[William Wallace]

Arguing in favor of removing all government regulations and social programs doesn't promote the free-market or increase personal liberty.

Rand wasn't a proponent of removing all regulations. And how is objectivism "corporate-fascist" bullshit?

[quote author=Perpetual Change
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.
[/quote]
What exactly is "true competition"? And why does the federal government always get to play referee in these fantastic schemes to promote fairness?

[ainamotore]

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.

I really don't care where people are from or how they started. It's irrelevant to the argument that it can ever be good to confiscate one person's wealth for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another.

Theft is immoral. Socially sanctioned theft is immoral. Socially legislated theft is immoral.

Voluntary taxation is the only possible moral form of taxation. We need to try it.

if anyone on this forum would choose not to contribute to their country, it is their right, but it says everything about the quality of their parents, the quality of themselves, and the eventual lack of quality of their children.

[ainamotore]

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.

Forget the labels. Forget bashing Ayn Rand. Stick to the topic. The topic is progressive taxation and the fact that it is morally bankrupt, and the only solution for it is a system of voluntary taxation.

Everything our government does is fundamentally immoral at the present time, because the entire political system is based on theft and coercion. In fact, if we continue down the path of collectivism-statism, we are morally no better than the Islamofascist states, and if they nuke us one day? No loss, morally. We're both at the same level, with their coercion based on mysticism, and ours based on altruism-collectivism. Same evil, different paint job.

[Perpetual Change]

And why does the federal government always get to play referee in these fantastic schemes to promote fairness?  

First off, what I'm suggesting is no more a "fantastic scheme to promote fairness" than what ainimator is suggesting and what libertarians sometimes suggest. Secondly, the government doesn't have to play referee, but someone needs to. Who? Again, the issue is what's the alternative?

Finally, as far a fascism goes, I'd recommend this article as a start, it's old, but completely valid.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050319170154/www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace27.html

Her philosophy, Objectivism, is also scapegoating. On the side of righteousness we have "capitalism, reason, and selfishness," and on the side of evil we have "altruism, mysticism and collectivism." The first are all good; the second are all bad. All badness is projected onto the second trio. So it has to be rubbed out. Her opponents aren’t simply mistaken; they’re evil.
。。。
What Rand did was to take a not-well-thought-out defense of libertarianism and place it on a foundation of narcissism and scapegoating. That is what I mean by her "secret teachings." They’re hidden underneath her "libertarianism." Her philosophy is a house built not on rock but on sand. No society based on it could ever exist. It couldn’t even get off of the ground. And according to the definition I gave above, almost all of her writings are clearly propaganda.
。。。
And what her propaganda overwhelmingly condones is the scapegoating of religion, generosity and "collectivism" not as wrong, but actively evil. It doesn’t surprise me that so many Randies support the current war; after all, the victims of our bombs aren’t exactly human, according to Objectivism.
。。。
It appears one of the inherent characteristics of the State is that it is scapegoating; it’s always seeking enemies – whether foreign or domestic – to destroy. The only explanation I can currently think of is its obsession with "security" – with sacrificing the "evil" to save itself. It’s a fake security, to be sure (the bazillions on defense and "intelligence" failed utterly to stop several deluded, gullible fanatics from bringing down two skyscrapers), and certainly a "security" that is always at the expense of liberty and community (which are the only true sources of security and order). The degenerate "traditions" of the State are, unfortunately, always opposed (and therefore damaging) to the traditions of society. Which is why the larger the State grow, the more backward civilization becomes.

[ainamotore]

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.

A flat tax would be a good transitional step towards voluntary taxation. It is at least fair. Coercive, but fair.

[Perpetual Change]

Theft is immoral. Socially sanctioned theft is immoral. Socially legislated theft is immoral.

If democratically controlled taxation is immoral, than all legislation is immoral. Anything the government does without my direct consent is immoral.

There is nothing "moral" about promoting a society where some people have vastly better chances to succeed than most. NOTHING. I can't figure how you could convince yourself otherwise.

But, who cares? What you say will never come to pass. And, if it does, rest assured those people you don't usually see from Camden, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, East Orange, Paulsboro, etc, etc., will be coming to a town near you to show you what *real* coercion is. They're inhuman parasites, just like the "heathen barbarians from the middle east" you described awhile back, right? You owe them nothing, but you'd voluntary give. Right?

[ainamotore]

Theft is immoral. Socially sanctioned theft is immoral. Socially legislated theft is immoral.

If democratically controlled taxation is immoral, than all legislation is immoral. Anything the government does without my direct consent is immoral.

There is nothing "moral" about promoting a society where some people have vastly better chances to succeed than most. NOTHING. I can't figure how you could convince yourself otherwise.

But, who cares? What you say will never come to pass. And, if it does, rest assured those people you don't usually see from Camden, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, East Orange, Paulsboro, etc, etc., will be coming to a town near you to show you what *real* coercion is. They're inhuman parasites, just like the "heathen barbarians from the middle east" you described awhile back, right? You owe them nothing, but you'd voluntary give. Right?

You have an interesting predilection for irrelevant hyperbole.

[Seventh Son]

Theft is immoral. Socially sanctioned theft is immoral. Socially legislated theft is immoral.

If democratically controlled taxation is immoral, than all legislation is immoral. Anything the government does without my direct consent is immoral.

There is nothing "moral" about promoting a society where some people have vastly better chances to succeed than most. NOTHING. I can't figure how you could convince yourself otherwise.

But, who cares? What you say will never come to pass. And, if it does, rest assured those people you don't usually see from Camden, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, East Orange, Paulsboro, etc, etc., will be coming to a town near you to show you what *real* coercion is. They're inhuman parasites, just like the "heathen barbarians from the middle east" you described awhile back, right? You owe them nothing, but you'd voluntary give. Right?

You have an interesting predilection for irrelevant hyperbole.

>predilection

[Perpetual Change]

You have an interesting predilection for irrelevant hyperbole.

How ironic.

Hyperbolic maybe but completely relevant, more relevant than the pipe-dream you've suggested to solve our national problems and just inconvenient because your argument seems to lack any thought beyond "theft is wrong, and this thing the government does when it takes my money feels like theft to me."

The argument you have made over and over in this thread has completely ignored and even avoided the idea that "morality" might mean more than just simply "not stepping on one another's toes."

[ainamotore]

In addition to the amount of tax being voluntary, I would like a system where every proposed law that involves public funding is tagged and placed in a comprehensive database on the Internet with an opt-in opt-out option. If you decided to opt out, then none of your tax dollars could be used for that program. In that way, citizens could help decide where they spend their tax dollars. And more importantly where their dollars would NOT be spent.

I would also like everyone to have a Facebook Political page. Where they state their political philosophy and try to convince other citizens why it would be good to spend their tax dollars the way THEY see it.

This would open up the pool of ideas and creativity with respect to solving social problems. And would steer funding accordingly. A free market of politico-economic ideas supported by rational persuasion and voluntary taxation.

[Adami]

You do realize that if that happens, most things won't be funded right? Considering that most americans are barely educated, and the ones who are STILL mostly don't know about 95% of the things tax dollars go to? Do you have any idea how much science would go unfunded? Education? All of it would eventually turn to dust. The people just don't care about things that don't directly affect them in an immediate positive way.

[Perpetual Change]

Further, I find it hard to believe you can't see the problems with what you're saying.

If people pay taxes voluntarily, the extremely wealthy will inevitably be the biggest contributors to the government (as they are now). If the extremely wealthy have a "choice" to pay taxes or not, they will donate when the government is doing something they support and not donate when the government is doing something they don't like, regardless of whether the government's actions have the consent of the people or not. Since the extremely wealthy will almost *always* have the power to strengthen or cripple the government based on whether they support what it's doing or not, what little democracy we have will crumble and the government will turn into nothing more than an outlet the upper-class to legitimize their collective will on people who might unite against them otherwise.

What your suggesting isn't a government at all. It's a gravy-train for corporate interests to establish perpetual dominance gilded in democratic legitimacy.

Sounds fair and moral to me, buddy!

[ainamotore]

You do realize that if that happens, most things won't be funded right? Considering that most americans are barely educated, and the ones who are STILL mostly don't know about 95% of the things tax dollars go to? Do you have any idea how much science would go unfunded? Education? All of it would eventually turn to dust. The people just don't care about things that don't directly affect them in an immediate positive way.

Oh baby, do I!

Government would shrink dramatically. As would its cost. As would its drag on our economy. Under such a system, the United States economy would generate almost unimaginable wealth, propsperity, and opportunity for its citizens. Science? Art? Research? Education? ALL would be moved to private hands where it can better be managed. The government has no business doing any of this anyway. Especially with wealth confiscated from private citizens.

How much fun would it be to review legislation and decide yay or nay based on the objective merits? How much fun would it be to teach your children the civics and values involved in making the proper decisions in the context of the Constitution and the Values of the Founding Fathers?

I think the electorate would be a LOT SMARTER if they needed to be. As it stands now, there is no point. Some screeching Nancy Pelosi bum rushes your paycheck and decides where your hard earned money goes. If the electorate were really calling the shots, they would be very interested and very involved. And even the dumbest rock can figure out to vote nay on researching the efficacy of spreading ointments on uncircumsized penises prior to sex on the African sub-continent to prevent the spread of disease. (Yes, your tax dollars were utilized for this).

[Adami]

Did you ignore my point? Let's just stick to science, to make it easier.

If left in completely private hands, most science would dissapear. Ask ANY scientist that posts here, if they are brave enough to engage in this redundant discussion.

[Seventh Son]

This is just sad.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the wealthy would take the opportunity to make everyone else their slaves. And the only economic growth would be the growth in the size of the paycheck felt by the upper class.

[ainamotore]

Did you ignore my point? Let's just stick to science, to make it easier.

If left in completely private hands, most science would dissapear. Ask ANY scientist that posts here, if they are brave enough to engage in this redundant discussion.

Utterly ridiculous. Science would continue. Pharmaceutical companies would continue researching drugs. Aerospace companies would continue researching opportunities in space. Companies involved in the applied sciences would continue developing chemicals, materials, and processes to advance human interests in all fields.

Public science would continue also. Why? Because most rational taxpayer would opt-in for a small portion of theoretical research with their tax dollars. So, for example, since I would like to pay 15% or 16% of my income for taxation, I would allocate about 5% for such research, because I realize that it will benefit America in the long run. Many other taxpayers would allocate more. Some would allocate none. The important thing is the concept of freedom.

By the way, the very wealthy would LOVE a system like this and they would probably contribute more of their income NATURALLY to such a system. In other words, a system of voluntary taxation would be NATURALLY PROGRESSIVE.

Why? Because people are inherently good, inherently helpful, and given a large earning capacity far in excess of what is needed to live comfortably, many wealthy people would voluntarily give 50% of their personal income to causes they felt were good.

Don't believe me? Ask Cory Booker:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/education/23newark.html

[Adami]

If only.

[Perpetual Change]

Did you ignore my point?

Dude, he ignored my whole post, and plenty of points in the posts he didn't ignore. He must've already figured out I'm one of the barbarian heathens which need to be culled after we complete our necessary genocide of the subhuman savages in the middle-east.

Don't fuck with John Petrucci's brother-in-law.

[ainamotore]

Did you ignore my point?

Dude, he ignored my whole post, and plenty of points in the posts he didn't ignore. He must've already figured out I'm one of the barbarian heathens which need to be culled after we complete our necessary genocide of the subhuman savages in the middle-east.

Don't fuck with John Petrucci's brother-in-law.

Look, I only argue with smart people. You're just not qualified.

[GuineaPig]

I guess I agree with you now, Sigz.

[Seventh Son]

Did you ignore my point?

Dude, he ignored my whole post, and plenty of points in the posts he didn't ignore. He must've already figured out I'm one of the barbarian heathens which need to be culled after we complete our necessary genocide of the subhuman savages in the middle-east.

Don't fuck with John Petrucci's brother-in-law.

Look, I only argue with smart people. You're just not qualified.

[Perpetual Change]

Hey, I know I'm not smart. There's the rub!

[hefdaddy42]

Look, I only argue with smart people. You're just not qualified.

That's enough of that.

[soundgarden]

Wow.  Well i don't know how to comment after the last two pages.  Ill just sit here and 

[rumborak]

Yeah, same here. Even though, the intellectual value of discussing Voluntaryism is essentially close to nil.

rumborak

[Adami]

Yeah, same here. Even though, the intellectual value of discussing Voluntaryism is essentially close to nil.

rumborak

You know, I could just completely disprove your entire argument by linking you to a youtube video of someone disagreeing with you, but I'll spare you that humilation.

[rumborak]

Phew, my self-esteem remains intact for another day.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

...democratically controlled...

I fucking hate this phrase and any variation of it. It's as if any lousy, or even dangerous, policy can be absolved if we call it democratic.   Majorities fuck up, often. They elect idiots, enact unworkable programs, and fail to put a stop to chicanery in government all the time. And yet somehow because it's 51 percent of the population fucking everything up, instead of one man or a group of unelected thugs, we're all supposed to bow in Awe of the process.

Secondly, the government doesn't have to play referee, but someone needs to. Who? Again, the issue is what's the alternative?

Why do we need a government referee? Because some people have more than others? There'll always be some people with more than others, and you can't minimize that with democratic socialism. I think a better alternative is a system where private property rights are protected and nobody is granted special treatment by the government. If that were the system we lived under many of the inequities you believe result from capitalism wouldn't exist.

That was a good article on Rand. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, so am not familiar with some of the references he makes. But his criticism has little to do with her defense of capitalism and even less to do with my point. Rand wasn't in favor of anarchy (or no regulations), nor an advocate of corporate fascism. I will say, however, that I'm not an Objectivist, and her philosophy sucks out loud in a lot of ways, though our reasons for thinking so are probably different.

[Perpetual Change]

Why do we need a government referee? Because some people have more than others? There'll always be some people with more than others, and you can't minimize that with democratic socialism. I think a better alternative is a system where private property rights are protected and nobody is granted special treatment by the government. If that were the system we lived under many of the inequities you believe result from capitalism wouldn't exist.

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.

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.

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).

The point is, while I acknowledge the overall *importance* of the market and capitalism as the "ideal" system, I don't think we can have the best market unless we can all agree to put in place programs or institutions that produce the maximum future competitors.

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.

In sum, like I said it DOESN'T have to be the government that plays referee. If we can agree that some kind of referee is needed, though, I'll even let you pick what it is, under the conditions that it's something more than just the magic guiding hand of the Forbes list.

[Chino]

]

Aerospace companies would continue researching opportunities in space.

We would never get a man anywhere near the surface of mars without government funding. At best we would get touring ships that can get you just beyond the Earth's atmosphere.

[rumborak]

It's one of Libertarians' necessary logical fallacies (to make their theory work) to assert that, if it weren't for government funded projects, private companies would jump in and do it.

rumborak

[Adami]

A major problem with that is that science is very often not profitable. Companies won't fund things that will simply make them lose money, and those things will turn to dust without gov funding.

[Nigerius Rex]

It's one of Libertarians' necessary logical fallacies (to make their theory work) to assert that, if it weren't for government funded projects, private companies would jump in and do it.

That argument isn't without merit. Spaceflight and research related to it has a large private infrastructure as an example. After a quick search I couldn't find any field the government specifically funded that had no private interest whatsoever and wasn't related to the military. And although the government is the reason we developed a space program at that time doesn't necessarily mean the private sector would never have founded their own.

A major problem with that is that science is very often not profitable. Companies won't fund things that will simply make them lose money, and those things will turn to dust without gov funding.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing and it also raises a few questions. Currently the state of government funding of scientific projects and things it deems scientific projects is a mess of spending and inefficiency. I dont doubt you could get a grant or research benefit for just about anything if you make it sound important enough, and the number of supposed scientific committees churning out unnecessary reports all bank on a government check. If the private industry who's infrastructure is based on continuous improvement, efficiency, and profit cannot find value in a research project, what reason is there to pursue it? Obviously there are exceptions when it comes to some government agencies and likely the majority of those related to military technology, but generally the government should not be funding things that are intentionally not going to produce something that will produce profit or reveal necessary information.

[Adami]

  Your last sentence was all that I needed to read. Profit = the ultimate goal. I hope the world gets past that one day.

[rumborak]

And although the government is the reason we developed a space program at that time doesn't necessarily mean the private sector would never have founded their own.

Exactly the wishy-washy argument I'm talking about. It's the silent assumption that private entities essentially have unlimited resources and will try everything, and that everything has a profit hidden in it.
That certain things have a merit in them that can't be measured in profit, is I guess .... too un-Ferengi.

rumborak