which tax is fairest?

[billvon 2,998]

>So then how do you explain all the things that exist that aren't provided
>for by the government?

There are a great many things that people want and are willing to pay for - food, housing, entertainment. This is a straightforward process. A pound of corn is valued at X, and if you are willing to give up X dollars (or equivalent) you will get a pound of corn. Economically that's a straightforward proposition. If you do not pay for the corn, you do not get it and cannot eat it.

Military defense is a completely different proposition. If you pay X you get nothing (other than, perhaps, peace of mind.) If you pay (X-1) you get bombed, invaded, killed etc. If you pay (X-1) and you get someone else to pay (X+1) then you again get nothing but you also don't get bombed. No one knows what X is until it's too late, when it becomes obvious in retrospect that (X-1) was not enough.

That is not a stable economic proposition. No one knows what the value is, no one gets any immediate or measurable benefit from paying and no one can determine if their contribution will do anything at all. That's why you can't treat it as a free market good - because the wisest short term investor will pay nothing at all, and thus out-compete his rivals foolish enough to support the military.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I know a local rancher whose daddy passed away and after the taxes and brothers and sisters, he wound-up with just barely 7,000 acres.

how old was this rancher when he got 7,000 unearned acres?

'Un-earned'? That man helped his daddy on that ranch from the time he could walk. He helped round-up cattle when he was six... from horse-back!. If, he wasn't in school, he worked on that ranch. Now, he and his wife work it. He takes a lot of pride in what he does. That doesn't sound like un-earned to me! The rest of the kids had no interest and sold their share as quick as they could.


Chuck


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

It's really sad to see these ranches having to be sold-off.

why is it sad?

You don't have a clue! Many ranches have been in families for over 100-yrs. When a descendant tries to keep the place and can't because of a ridiculous tax... that's sad.


Chuck

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

There are a great many things that people want and are willing to pay for - food, housing, entertainment.  This is a straightforward process.  A pound of corn is valued at X, and if you are willing to give up X dollars (or equivalent) you will get a pound of corn.  Economically that's a straightforward proposition.  If you do not pay for the corn, you do not get it and cannot eat it.

Okay, but where did all that stuff come from?  The corn doesn't exist simply because you want it.  All those things must be produced.  And why are they produced?  It's not because people desire to spend their life in the pursuit of you having the availability of corn.  They do it to make a living.  Hopefully you are aware that most people work in order to sustain their lives.  I don't need to pay for a farm to buy some corn, I don't need to pay for a hospital to buy healthcare, and I don't need to pay for the cellular network to buy a cellphone.  People (or groups of people) pay for the farms, hospitals, cell phone networks, etc, because they hope a market exists for the products that they produce with those things, and they expect to make a profit.  It is the same thing for defense.  The right to liberty is free.  The defense of that right may be costly, but it is ludicrous to think that there is any moral or ethical justification for the government to point a gun at me (behind all bureaucracy is a gun pointed at you) to have me pay them to keep people from pointing guns at me!

[billvon 2,998]

>Okay, but where did all that stuff come from?

From a consumer economy, in which people are paid for the value (in goods or services) that they supply.

>It is the same thing for defense.

No, it's not.

If you contributed $10,000 to the 'national defense fund,' what do you get? If I instead contribute nothing, what do I get that's different from what you get? What sane capitalist would constantly give away money like that, when they can give nothing and get the same level of protection?

>The defense of that right may be costly, but it is ludicrous to think that there
>is any moral or ethical justification for the government to point a gun at me
>(behind all bureaucracy is a gun pointed at you) to have me pay them to keep
>people from pointing guns at me!

It is even more ludicrous to think that people, out of their own generosity and the goodness of their hearts, will send lots of money to an organization that gives them no direct benefit.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I know a local rancher whose daddy passed away and after the taxes and brothers and sisters, he wound-up with just barely 7,000 acres.

how old was this rancher when he got 7,000 unearned acres?

'Un-earned'? That man helped his daddy on that ranch from the time he could walk. He helped round-up cattle when he was six... from horse-back!. If, he wasn't in school, he worked on that ranch. Now, he and his wife work it. He takes a lot of pride in what he does. That doesn't sound like un-earned to me! The rest of the kids had no interest and sold their share as quick as they could.

How much of the ranch was lost due to taxes, and how much was lost because his siblings wanted to liquidate their shares? Even if the estate were inherited tax free, if the siblings want to liquidate, there is still going to be a substantial reduction in the size of the ranch.

I mean no offense, but I personally don't see the sense in trying to raise cattle on such expensive land where 40 acres per head is required, when elsewhere in the country, much cheaper land is available on which (according to some lifelong farming relatives in the area) 1 head of cattle per ~2 acres of pasture can be raised (Quick search revealed this example). From a business perspective it just seems like your location is the wrong place to be if one wants to raise cattle.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

>Yes, Quade, because in the absence of government those things would cease to exist

In many places - yes, they would.

The libertarian fantasy that "everyone will just voluntarily chip in and buy a new aircraft carrier!" is just that - a fantasy. There's a reason that "providing for a common defense" is in the US constitution - because if you leave it to chance (or to voluntary contribution) it doesn't happen.

Bill, do you have any idea as to how our common defense was paid for before the income tax?

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[billvon 2,998]

>Bill, do you have any idea as to how our common defense was paid for before the
>income tax?

Primarily by excise, property, poll and faculty taxes. Excise taxes were basically tariffs. Faculty taxes were taxes on the rich (more accurately, on social leaders.)

[masterrig 1]

He got what he could afford at the time. It was I guess, a matter of 'pride' in that ranch and a desire on his part to continue something. If, he could've paid the taxes and the going rate at the time, he would've. The price per acre that I gave is what the going rate is because so many people are wanting out of the big cities to move to the country.
Why, would he want to move? this is where he was born and raised! It may be hard for some folks to understand that thinking. It's something you just have to 'live'. Sure, this is 'hard' country and it takes hard work to make it but, there's something rewarding in it. You either want it bad enough to work for it or you just don't do it... simple. You can't always find those answers on the internet.


Chuck

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

It is even more ludicrous to think that people, out of their own generosity and the goodness of their hearts, will send lots of money to an organization that gives them no direct benefit.

Are you listening to yourself Bill?  So you think it is sane (or ethical or moral) for the government to point guns at people in order to force them to pay to keep people from pointing guns at them?  Thats ridiculous!  And then your excuse is that people won't otherwise pay for something that doesn't directly benefit them?  Well why the hell should they?

[Rainbo 0]

Chuck, ya got to remember that some of these clowns have no concept of what earning a personal reward through hard work means. They have lived the live of "entitlement" and will probably never realize the sense of pride that comes from actually doing something...

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[billvon 2,998]

> So you think it is sane (or ethical or moral) for the government to point guns
> at people in order to force them to pay to keep people from pointing guns at
> them?

I never claimed that we should force them to pay "to keep people from pointing guns at them." I claimed that the requirement to pay taxes (yes, backed up by the threat of prosecution under our justice system, up to and including police 'pointing guns at you') is important to maintain a military; without a military we would not exist.

>Well why the hell should they?

Because they live in a country with a constitution.

As I've said, if you do not agree with the rights and responsibilities of US citizens as called out in the US constitution, then have the courage of your convictions and go somewhere where the duties of citizenship are less onerous. Find a deserted island and live there. If anyone tries to take it from you, simply fund a military and repel them.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If, he could've paid the taxes and the going rate at the time, he would've.

I'm still curious how much of the downsizing was due to taxes, and how much was due to his siblings wanting out.

Quote

Why, would he want to move? this is where he was born and raised! It may be hard for some folks to understand that thinking. It's something you just have to 'live'. Sure, this is 'hard' country and it takes hard work to make it but, there's something rewarding in it. You either want it bad enough to work for it or you just don't do it... simple. You can't always find those answers on the internet.

I completely understand that. But, it's a tradeoff. Staying there had a its costs for him, both monetary and opportunity. It sounds like he made the choice he felt was best, and paid the associated price (any choice would have an associated price). It's a bummer that his siblings wanted out, but I suspect they made the choices they felt were best for them. Nonetheless, I have to say that I still support the estate tax.

Incidentally, I don't think you'll find anywhere that isn't hard country when it comes to ranching/farming. That's a tough job anywhere one tries to do it, offering full time work 365 days per year, and so much income volatility, due to weather, that many farmers choose to work a regular job as well, just to make sure there's an income during the bad years. No one stays in that line of work unless they truly enjoy it.

[jcd11235 0]

When was the last time a government representative actually pointed a gun at you? Your argument is sensationalist, at best.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AdamLanes 1]

Bill, is there any ethical or moral reason for the existence of the military in the first place? I can think of only one, to protect the rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property. So tell me how it makes any sense to use violence or the threat of violence to forcefully collect money from the people that you are supposed to be protecting?

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

>Bill, do you have any idea as to how our common defense was paid for before the
>income tax?

Primarily by excise, property, poll and faculty taxes. Excise taxes were basically tariffs. Faculty taxes were taxes on the rich (more accurately, on social leaders.)

And which of these were levied by the federal government after the Constitution was ratified?

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[billvon 2,998]

>Bill, is there any ethical or moral reason for the existence of the military in
>the first place? I can think of only one, to protect the rights of individuals to
>their life, liberty, and property. So tell me how it makes any sense to use
>violence or the threat of violence to forcefully collect money from the people that
>you are supposed to be protecting?

Because without taxes the military will be unsupported and the country will fall.

It's a purely practical consideration. You're arguing that things should be the way you like them because of moral considerations. Great. That's like saying there should be no money and everyone should work for the good of society, or that there should be no prisons because no one should really want to steal or harm others, or that you should never discipline children; just teach them right from wrong. Also great. Just doesn't work in the real world.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And which of these were levied by the federal government after the Constitution was ratified?

All of them, since the federal government was created by the Constitution.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

And which of these were levied by the federal government after the Constitution was ratified?

All of them, since the federal government was created by the Constitution.

I can't find any reference to the US government levying a poll tax. Can you jcd?

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

When was the last time a government representative actually pointed a gun at you? Your argument is sensationalist, at best.

You mean documented and verifiable? Probably a few years ago when 5 deputies kicked in the door of my apartment without a warrant. It makes little difference whether the tax collector actually points a gun at you or not, since the threat is there and is very real. Do you deny that the government collects taxes through the use of coercion?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And which of these were levied by the federal government after the Constitution was ratified?

All of them, since the federal government was created by the Constitution.

I can't find any reference to the US government levying a poll tax. Can you jcd?

Blues,
Cliff

Sorry, no. What I meant is that the federal government didn't levy any taxes prior to the Constitution being ratified, as the federal government didn't exist until ratification.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

When was the last time a government representative actually pointed a gun at you? Your argument is sensationalist, at best.

You mean documented and verifiable? Probably a few years ago when 5 deputies kicked in the door of my apartment without a warrant.

Why do I doubt that?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It makes little difference whether the tax collector actually points a gun at you or not, since the threat is there and is very real. Do you deny that the government collects taxes through the use of coercion?

In most cases, there would be no need for a gun. They would be able to use other methods, such as freezing your assets. Remember, tax monies owed belong to the government, not to the person who paid or owes the taxes. Failure to pay is no different from theft.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AdamLanes 1]

So you're telling me that it makes sense for the government to coerce people with the threat of violence to pay taxes in order for the government to protect their rights? I mean the government is violating people's rights in order to get the money they say they are using to protect people's rights? Why don't we just beat people up to get money to pay for their healthcare while we're at it? Is that such a great idea? Because it follows the same logic. The government is spending more money then ever before, and I have fewer rights than at any time in my life. How dumb are you?

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

I have fewer rights than at any time in my life. How dumb are you?

Adam, you still have all of your rights. If you are expecting the government to protect them for you well than good luck.
It's up to you to protect and exercise your rights.
If you believe that the income tax is a violation of your rights don't pay it. Infact as a patriot it would be your duty to not pay it.
Yes there may be consequences but freedom isn't free. Stick up for yourself and stick out your neck.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth