Pages:
Author

Topic: 9-9-9 - page 3. (Read 4631 times)

sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 26, 2011, 11:50:07 AM
#28
Welcome back Fred.  Still not worked out the whole society concept I see.  Just to remind you, people do get together and act for their common good.  The action requires money.  Taxation is the mechanism used to pay for it.  You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

Oh, I get the whole society "concept". There's nothing wrong with individuals collectively working together to achieve a goal. That's just like any association, or solidarity. Name your flavor (Rotary Club, Red Cross, Religious groups, Insurance companies, etc.). The same could be said of a government except that they too must form in a voluntary way otherwise it isn't free association anymore but force and coercion. That isn't what we call "consent to be governed".

I have no problem with spending money on any number of things, just so long as those activities don't infringe on the freedoms of others. As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."
hero member
Activity: 1988
Merit: 501
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
October 26, 2011, 11:47:58 AM
#27

I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.


apparently, you dont understand the term social contract.

whether you want to admit it or not, you reap the benefits of government provided services, so you have to pay the price for them. 



Is the social contract of the USA not the US constitution? Where does it authorize the "services" mention earlier? If your logic is valid then 99% taxes are justified so long as the govt provides some "service" from which you "benefit." Ever since the constitution was instated, the govt has been steadily increasing it's spending and taxing. What kind of a contract is it when the terms change over time to increase your liability and still be valid? That makes no sense.
hero member
Activity: 700
Merit: 500
daytrader/superhero
October 26, 2011, 11:32:30 AM
#26

I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.


apparently, you dont understand the term social contract.

whether you want to admit it or not, you reap the benefits of government provided services, so you have to pay the price for them. 

legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
October 26, 2011, 11:27:11 AM
#25
You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.
hero member
Activity: 630
Merit: 500
October 26, 2011, 11:26:23 AM
#24
They do have a contract with me. its called a social contract.

I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
October 26, 2011, 11:24:05 AM
#23
You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too. 

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.
hero member
Activity: 630
Merit: 500
October 26, 2011, 11:23:28 AM
#22
I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes.

How is stealing "less evil" than stealing?

I meant in the economic consequences. An act of theft may be worse than a different act of theft. Income taxes steal both from consumption and savings, while VAT spare savings. Savings play a fundamental role in economic growth. And those people who complain that VAT are regressive because poor people save less are failing to see that every saving is done with the intention of being consumed one day. Maybe by the saver's heirs, but it will be consumed.
A truly regressive "tax" is inflation.
hero member
Activity: 700
Merit: 500
daytrader/superhero
October 26, 2011, 11:19:40 AM
#21
Despite whatever privilege you think your government has, if someone (regardless of their title) comes to you and demands that you relinquish your property to them when they have no contract with you to do so, is coercion and plunder. Look thru the veil of obfuscation for a moment and step back and take a bird's-eye view of it. Now imagine you and two other people in the room with you. They could form a government. Why on earth should they ever have any greater permission to relieve you of your property than anybody else in the room?

They do have a contract with me. its called a social contract.

I expect the government to provide roads, schools, police, fire dept, military protection, care and support to the poor and disadvantaged, mediate legal disputes, regulate food and drugs, and enforce workplace safety conditions (among other things).

they expect me to pay taxes to help pay for those services, which i do happily.


legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
October 26, 2011, 11:19:08 AM
#20

What you mean to say is that you feel less guilty stealing 9% of someone's money if they have a lot of it.

no. no i don't. taxes aren't stealing.



Despite whatever privilege you think your government has, if someone (regardless of their title) comes to you and demands that you relinquish your property to them when they have no contract with you to do so, is coercion and plunder. Look thru the veil of obfuscation for a moment and step back and take a bird's-eye view of it. Now imagine you and two other people in the room with you. They could form a government. Why on earth should they ever have any greater permission to relieve you of your property than anybody else in the room?

Welcome back Fred.  Still not worked out the whole society concept I see.  Just to remind you, people do get together and act for their common good.  The action requires money.  Taxation is the mechanism used to pay for it.  You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too. 
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 26, 2011, 11:13:25 AM
#19

What you mean to say is that you feel less guilty stealing 9% of someone's money if they have a lot of it.

no. no i don't. taxes aren't stealing.



Despite whatever privilege you think your government has, if someone (regardless of their title) comes to you and demands that you relinquish your property to them when they have no contract with you to do so, is coercion and plunder. Look thru the veil of obfuscation for a moment and step back and take a bird's-eye view of it. Now imagine you and two other people in the room with you. They could form a government. Why on earth should they ever have any greater permission to relieve you of your property than anybody else in the room?
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
October 26, 2011, 11:10:01 AM
#18
When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

But when a rich man invests in a really expensive bicycle, he's taxed regardless. And when a poor man invests $12.62 in penny stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 26, 2011, 11:07:10 AM
#17
The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.

The economic affects are not disasterous - the US is unusual in not having a VAT and its hard to argue that the US is better off as a result.  The transfer of the tax burden onto the poor is a fair point though.  In England, the combination of taxes on petrol, drink and tobacco with VAT means that the very poor have the highest effective tax rates.
I would be happy with them regulating and taxing the middle-class and above with no inhibition as along as they left the little guy alone. The freedom of the proletarian is all that's left in this society. To be free to be self-sufficient with minimal means is a right that should still be enjoyed. It's something I would like to enjoy in bad circumstances...

Wouldn't it just be better if the government left everybody alone?
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 26, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
#16
And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes.

How is stealing "less evil" than stealing?
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
October 26, 2011, 10:59:29 AM
#15
When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.
hero member
Activity: 700
Merit: 500
daytrader/superhero
October 26, 2011, 10:51:47 AM
#14

What you mean to say is that you feel less guilty stealing 9% of someone's money if they have a lot of it.

no. no i don't. taxes aren't stealing.

newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
October 26, 2011, 10:24:49 AM
#13
The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.

The economic affects are not disasterous - the US is unusual in not having a VAT and its hard to argue that the US is better off as a result.  The transfer of the tax burden onto the poor is a fair point though.  In England, the combination of taxes on petrol, drink and tobacco with VAT means that the very poor have the highest effective tax rates.
I would be happy with them regulating and taxing the middle-class and above with no inhibition as along as they left the little guy alone. The freedom of the proletarian is all that's left in this society. To be free to be self-sufficient with minimal means is a right that should still be enjoyed. It's something I would like to enjoy in bad circumstances...
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
October 26, 2011, 10:12:50 AM
#12
The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.

The economic affects are not disasterous - the US is unusual in not having a VAT and its hard to argue that the US is better off as a result.  The transfer of the tax burden onto the poor is a fair point though.  In England, the combination of taxes on petrol, drink and tobacco with VAT means that the very poor have the highest effective tax rates.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
October 26, 2011, 10:08:05 AM
#11
The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
October 26, 2011, 09:10:21 AM
#10
bitcoin2cash: Propose an alternative.

No taxes. Pay for what you use. Privatize everything.

...snip...
Didn't we cover that in the fire-fighter thread and agree that some things, for example fire cover, work best if everyone contributes?

EDIT:
personally, I would have allowed the guy to promise to make the $2,000 payment if he really wanted it put out...but a fire company can let a house burn...

One problem with that is that if you do that then it might be the case that nobody will pay until their house is on fire and there won't be any money to maintain the service. It's kind of like the problem with health insurance. If you allow people with pre-existing conditions to join then nobody will join until they are sick.

hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Coinabul - Gold Unbarred
October 26, 2011, 09:00:17 AM
#9
And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes.

Sometimes they promise to remove income tax when they bring in a VAT. The really evil part is when they don't and you are left paying income tax and VAT together.
Pages:
Jump to: