Topic: Food for Thought: Nature of Justice & Why nations were formed (Read 1670 times)

Wrong question.   Obviously if someone wants to be part of a nation that has this tax rate and policies then they agreed to be subject to those laws.  If not then they would not be part of the nation, they would be part of some other nation where they agreed with their laws and taxes or lack there of.

This response just sidesteps my statement.  Human motives and interests persist in any system.  You seem to be under the impression that this will be some Utopia where somehow people will be better off.  From you other writings you have no problem with people falling behind or having a large underclass, that is for sure. 

As long as this view is supported by you or other AnCappers, you will just continue to be a fringe movement with no hope of actual execution.  You need to embrace that people have been abused and been put at a disadvantage that is not just of their own making.  That is called reality and compassion.  Not just saying, oh they will just go to charity.  It just shows you lack true empathy.

A few for a limited time, rotating in and out of government is what I advocate, just like in our constitution.  You seem to forget that document we have in America.  I know many do not respect it, but I do.

Look at your responses and tell me I have no clue?  I read what you write.  I under what your saying when you mention pure capitalism and free markets.  Yes, Mises and Hayek are in my library and I actually have a book on order that is a collection of Hayek essays I will be reading.  That doesn't mean everything that have said is correct either.   That is where your own analysis and common sense comes in.

Because humans have many different interests and perspectives on what is ok to do and not.  You seem to advocate a system where it is just fine and dandy that people can be taken advantage of at anytime.  I don't, have fair and clear rules so people can operate and compete is for everyone well being.

Pure capitalism doesn't work because we are on a finite planet.  And I don't advocate a system where over time, a relative few of the population owns and or controls all the resources. 

First off, I have not taken a micro or macro economics course.   Second, I have personally put together an impressive library of banking, money, economics, politics, history and philosophy books and have read over 200 of them and counting, so if what you saying is after putting this much time in to understand something about the world we live in and form a view on human nature and stating what I feel, then yes, I guess that is what I am doing.     Have you even read Wealth of Nations from your hero Adam Smith?  Even he says you can't have purely free markets.   

What makes you think that a straight free market would not result in most people being well off? And what proof do you have that pure capitalism doesn't work?

It seems to me like you're just repeating what you've been taught in school.

That may be the case but my point is certain types of activity I think, should not be encouraged compared to other business activity.  Namely, rent-seeking and usury.  On top of that, I would want policies in place that make it difficult to concentrate capital at a certain point (this can be debated).   Concentration of capital at a certain level causes societal problems and the people who control this said capital tend to use it to gain undue influence and shape politics (yes there are even politics on AnCap, just not in a formal sense) and policies.   

A system where most people are well off is better than a system where a small handful are doing wonderful and rest are running around for crumbs.  Finding a balance is your goal, it is not just one way or the other.    Pure unbridled capitalism doesn't work nor does absolute socialism or communism.   

So in your system, you get to arbitrarily pay the taxes you want, arbitrarily tax whatever companies you want (under the pretext that they are "trying to monopolize or corner any industry", which is naturally a subjective observation), and somehow this is supposed to encourage new businesses and a more vibrant environment?

If I am an investor, and an entrepreneur comes to me for capital to build a housing complex (thus reducing rental costs for the area, as more housing is available), I might look at my potential gains (profit of $100k on a $1M investment), your 60% capital gains tax (or whatever it is you wish to raise the capital gains tax rate to), and say, meh, tying up $1M for a $400k return over 10 years isn't worth it.  Whereas I might look at the current capital gains tax rate (what is it, 25%?), and say, wow, $750k over a 10 year span for a $1M investment sounds like a great deal!

Meanwhile, because I've decided not to invest in a housing complex, the housing complex doesn't get built, people struggle to find a place to live, and housing rental prices rise until the calculated return on investment is worth it for some investor somewhere.

What am I missing here?  How would a capital gains tax NOT discourage investment?


Sgt. if you want to actually discuss this, then you need to read what I wrote.  I never mentioned or support a 60% capital gains rate.  I wrote a range of 10-19% is an acceptable tax range depending on the nature of the income.  

If you are going to just make up number and then do equations, I guess then you can make any example to make my statements seem unreasonable.   I would like to address what I am actually saying and not wild speculation or assumptions.  Agreeable?

Dalkore

Ok, so you want to reduce current capital gains taxes, and further reduce or eliminate all other taxes?  I am all for smaller government, and any decrease in investor level taxes would certainly increase economic activity.

I suppose the only remaining point of contention might lie along these lines: I would argue that a 5% tax rate on all would stimulate the economy more than a 10% tax only on capital gains.

Sgt. if you want to actually discuss this, then you need to read what I wrote.  I never mentioned or support a 60% capital gains rate.  I wrote a range of 10-19% is an acceptable tax range depending on the nature of the income. 

If you are going to just make up number and then do equations, I guess then you can make any example to make my statements seem unreasonable.   I would like to address what I am actually saying and not wild speculation or assumptions.  Agreeable?

Dalkore

All I will say is good luck.

I think he finally gets it.

I'll answer you so you understand.   Yes, people are free to disagree with me or anyone else. 

But what is interesting when this statement is made is that somehow that logic is applied to where you are currently located.   The only solution for that is to start and complete a revolution so you can have this environment. 

No, it's the only question that matters.

Now I understand why you didn't want to answer the question.

Wrong question.

Obviously if someone wants to be part of a nation that has this tax rate and policies then they agreed to be subject to those laws.  If not then they would not be part of the nation, they would be part of some other nation where they agreed with their laws and taxes or lack there of.

So in your system, you get to arbitrarily pay the taxes you want, arbitrarily tax whatever companies you want (under the pretext that they are "trying to monopolize or corner any industry", which is naturally a subjective observation), and somehow this is supposed to encourage new businesses and a more vibrant environment?

If I am an investor, and an entrepreneur comes to me for capital to build a housing complex (thus reducing rental costs for the area, as more housing is available), I might look at my potential gains (profit of $100k on a $1M investment), your 60% capital gains tax (or whatever it is you wish to raise the capital gains tax rate to), and say, meh, tying up $1M for a $400k return over 10 years isn't worth it.  Whereas I might look at the current capital gains tax rate (what is it, 25%?), and say, wow, $750k over a 10 year span for a $1M investment sounds like a great deal!

Meanwhile, because I've decided not to invest in a housing complex, the housing complex doesn't get built, people struggle to find a place to live, and housing rental prices rise until the calculated return on investment is worth it for some investor somewhere.

What am I missing here?  How would a capital gains tax NOT discourage investment?

tl;dr

Should other people be free to disagree with you, or should they be forced to comply with what you think is acceptable?

I disagree.  First off, my tax rates over all would be less than our current system.   Around 10-19% seem to be a range I feel would be acceptable and would meet the needs of basic services. 

You can't compare our current system to a new system in a 1 to 1 manner.   There are many other laws that would be changed or thrown out.  Overall it would be a much more vibrant environment and it would encourage new business.  What it would focus on is established businesses that continue to trying and monopolize or corner any industry.   Usually other business are the biggest deterrent for new entrants, not the tax code.   

Again I state, I would want to discourage large concentrations of wealth in rent-seeking and interest gather operations.

Around 10-19% seem to be a range I feel would be acceptable and would meet the needs of basic services.

But the rules you would like to see happen would discourage the economy from creating a quality environment.  You'd have fewer people attempting to start up small businesses, less innovation (equates to fewer products improving our lives), less jobs available (fewer people who want to invest in a larger labor force when the risk vs reward ratio is lower and their loans cost more?), etc.

First off, just saying Economics Rule does mean anything.   

Yes I see this sort of tax structure beneficial to the economy as society.  It will build a sound foundation to grow upon.  It will also be beneficial for society because it will not create major imbalances that create social discontent that if left unchecked will hamper economic activity.   

Maybe you forgot that society and the economy have to work together to create a quality environment.