Posted:
#26
If you think taxation is theft, you should not live in a large society.
There's something happening here
Posted:
#27
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
If you think taxation is theft, you should not live in a large society.
If you think taxation is theft, you should not live in a large society.
His post has got to be a joke. How does he think society would function if we didnt have taxes to pay for the things that keep society functioning?
I know one thing, hes got to stop thinking we are living in a country of 13 million people and things can be like it was 200 years ago.
I just cannot believe anybody can have thoughts like this. I have never met anybody with these kinds of thoughts, in the 50 years i have been alive. Boggles my mind
I guess the money will just have to fall from the sky to pay for anything.
Posted:
#28
@26 and 27
there was no income tax in the US until 1913. did we not have a society until then?
only government can provide the goods or services citizens need?
i am not against schools because i am against government run schools. just as i am not against feeding the poor because i am against government feeding the poor
please make the distinction
there was no income tax in the US until 1913. did we not have a society until then?
only government can provide the goods or services citizens need?
i am not against schools because i am against government run schools. just as i am not against feeding the poor because i am against government feeding the poor
please make the distinction
Posted:
#29
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the
distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every
time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists
conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state
education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any
education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that
we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then
they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as
if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat
because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
? Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
? Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
Posted:
#30
Koaj,
You said tax is theft..or didnt you?
If you dislike tax then find an avenue that you can maximize your satisfaction of not paying taxes..then find out what "costs" there are for living somewhere that taxes do not exist.
You are against public school, you have said multiple times your idea of a school is a 1099 teacher in a Charter school format existing in a store front. That is not school and is not possible for society in which we live.
Your thinking is so narrow minded and selfish that it lacks common sense. You cannot think of society in terms of only cost to you, that if you do not want that benefit then you do not pay the cost. That sort of thinking works best if you were to isolate yourself completely from society..you cannot exist in a society without having a cost of living IN that society.
You know what would happen if you bought Koaj island (as we have mentioned in the past), your wife would make severely less, you would not have the benefits of community, your side business would not have a customer to sell to (isolate means you do not have ACCESS to that society either since you do not want to pay taxes to function with that society).
I am far from being a socialist, I just realize the cost/benefit of living in a society and understand the cost of my choices and dont isolate myself like you do.
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by DiscoD69:
I think this is actually a pretty good example of what separates libertarians from typical conservatives. Many conservatives realize in a modern society we need some form of basic taxation (yes they want as low as possible, but 'none' is not really realistic). Hence my quote. I think that is a smart, reasonable approach.
Assuming something has to be taxed, I agree with the notion that we should tax things we don't want, while lowering taxes on things we do want, like income which is productivity. Right now income is heavily taxed while things like oil companies are actually subsidized.
the only time you will find me defending government is when i speak to an anarchist or anarcho capitalist or whe i have to defend the Constitution. its very tough to have a free society and be a free people when government and private banks rob you through the currency you earn (inflation)
lets start with questions:
-who owns your labor? you or government
-who is best to determine how your earnings are spent? you or government
-do you believe that only government can build roads?
-do you believe that government mandates services that are not demanded by the market?
Posted:
#32
wall - the disdain for taxation is simply because i believe the market is the best barometer for services
if i have no kids in school, should i pay for local schools? if so, then apartment renters in my town with kids in public schools should pay a piece of my landscaping bill
its the same principle
if i came to your house every two weeks with a gun and demanded 25-30% of what you earn for the betterment of society as i see fit, you would have the police arrest me and press charges for armed robbery. why is taxation any different?
if i have no kids in school, should i pay for local schools? if so, then apartment renters in my town with kids in public schools should pay a piece of my landscaping bill
its the same principle
if i came to your house every two weeks with a gun and demanded 25-30% of what you earn for the betterment of society as i see fit, you would have the police arrest me and press charges for armed robbery. why is taxation any different?
Posted:
#34
Koaj,
Do you really think that a lawyer can find work on a remote island or in a rural area? Can you find customers to sell your stuff if there are no customers to sell to?
Where is the "market" without said society?
The market cannot perform utility functions, there are costs associated in a society outside of the market, that is not a complicated theory and you should understand that.
Even with that being said, you can still find your place if you are seeking to minimize taxation..but you will find a cost with that end goal..
Do you really think that a lawyer can find work on a remote island or in a rural area? Can you find customers to sell your stuff if there are no customers to sell to?
It doesnt matter if you have kids in school or not, you went to school and schools are a part of society..the larger group, the rest of us outside you and the wife.
If you are so mad about taxation that you equate it to someone holding a gun to your head, then search for ways to minimize it..
You live in an area BY CHOICE that has high taxation, you can move probably within an hour of your current location and cut property taxes by 70% if you wanted to. Nobody forced you to buy in the suburbs where houses cost more and society demands great schools and the community wants services. Go move to another area and cut those taxes.
Apartment dwellers pay taxes by paying rent..the owner of the property pays taxes, so those lazy suckers in the apartment complexes are not getting a freebie off your back, they pay taxes via rent, via buying goods and services, via paying utility bills..
It must suck being so mad at everyone like you are..sounds like you would be better off living in a rural area where you can provide your own electricity, water, pave your own road and not be taken advantage of like you feel you are.
Posted:
#37
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
There is already property tax based on land value. Such a capital tax is among the worst taxes because it ignores ability to pay. Carbon tax is better because it targets fuel consumption and is based on ability to pay. .
This post is so wrong on so many levels, i'm not sure where to start
Land value tax and property taxes are two separate things, entirely. Property taxes are on the structures that we build on top of the land, land value taxes are on the values we place on the site itself. The only thing even remotely true, is that in some places on some levels, the value of the land is taxes, ever so lightly that no one ever even notices it.
Such a capital tax is amongst the worst taxes
capital tax? So you are claiming that land and capital are one in the same? Please, do explain.
Carbon tax is better,,,,,,ok, i'm back from throwing up. carbon tax is not better then any tax, it is as evil and nonsensical a concept ever dreampt by any fool or foe. Everyone knows that taxing something at it's base is infinitely more efficient then at it's end use
Posted:
#38
I recently heard a conservative say 'we should be taxing what we don't
want (pollution/carbon) and not taxing what we do want (income ie
productivity).'
Disco! buddy, you're finally coming around to my side. If only you hadn't held such personal grudges, you could have been here a year ago. Welcome
What we don't want, is monopolistic rents being funneled to private persons.
I think that anyone that finds interest in these conversations, needs to first educate themselves on the difference between TAXES and RENTS
Disco! buddy, you're finally coming around to my side. If only you hadn't held such personal grudges, you could have been here a year ago. Welcome
What we don't want, is monopolistic rents being funneled to private persons.
I think that anyone that finds interest in these conversations, needs to first educate themselves on the difference between TAXES and RENTS
Posted:
#39
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
BE,
BE,
You could start a thread about what is the best flavor of ice cream and twist it to be about the LVT.
or "rent seeking"
This guy's repetition of the same talking points is both refreshing (because it is not partisan rhetoric) and redundant....
There is third talking point however that he seems to be get caught up in
Posted:
#40
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
or "rent seeking"
This guy's repetition of the same talking points is both refreshing (because it is not partisan rhetoric) and redundant....
There is third talking point however that he seems to be get caught up in
or "rent seeking"
This guy's repetition of the same talking points is both refreshing (because it is not partisan rhetoric) and redundant....
There is third talking point however that he seems to be get caught up in
talking point? you don't even understand the terminology
stick to your usual routine rather then cluttering my threads with your post count padding nonsense
Posted:
#41
We all know that the carbon tax scams were fraud that were thought up by the crooks that brought us Enron (Republicans if it makes you hate them more). All of the energy schemes and the blackouts and yet we still have fucktarded ideas about letting them not only create an entire new set of derivatives that will rape the common man, but we want to institutionalize these awful ideas into law, so that the Governments gun thugs can back up the robbery.
The heaviest burden will be upon the poor, they will not be able to heat their homes in the winter, and cool their homes in the summer. They will not be able to drive to work (especially bad for the rural poor).
Carbon taxing is an awful fraud wrapped in green intentions.
The entire "green" movement has been co-opted by BP, Chevron, and the energy cartels.
Posted:
#43
Land value tax is a component of property tax based on values from a combination of land, buildings and improvements. Property tax is a capital tax because buildings are capital.
Impractical to replace all taxes with single land tax. Powerful lobby group of owners would never allow that. Property tax is flawed because rich and poor owners pay same tax regardless of income. Not as limited by ability to pay, income tax is a superior source of revenue for governments. Also fairer and progressive in that the rich pay more while the poor pay less.
Furthermore, sin taxes such as tobacco are more effective in targeting sins than land tax. Idea for land value tax has existed for centuries. But property tax is mostly at municipal level and not federal level.
Posted:
#44
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Land value tax is a component of property tax based on values from a combination of land, buildings and improvements. Property tax is a capital tax because buildings are capital.
Impractical to replace all taxes with single land tax. Powerful lobby group of owners would never allow that. Property tax is flawed because rich and poor owners pay same tax regardless of income. Not as limited by ability to pay, income tax is a superior source of revenue for governments. Also fairer and progressive in that the rich pay more while the poor pay less.
Furthermore, sin taxes such as tobacco are more effective in targeting sins than land tax. Idea for land value tax has existed for centuries. But property tax is mostly at municipal level and not federal level.
This is simply false. Land value tax is a tax upon the inherent value of the land itself, absent any improvements. land cannot be capital by definition, hence a tax on land values is not a capital tax
income tax is a superior source of revenue for governments. Also fairer and progressive in that the rich pay more while the poor pay less.
ALso false. Income tax impedes economic activity, because it penalizes the 50% of the population that does the labor that produces the income(civilian workforce). Taxes are penalties, why would we want to penalize people for producing goods and services?
In 2010 the federal government collected $2.2 trillion, an amount equal to 14.9 percent of GDP
910 billion coming from personal income taxes
880 billion coming from payroll taxes
This puts the responsibility of funding government almost entirely on working class individuals. Productive activity. Bidding up land values makes us all poorer, and land speculation is unproductive activity. If we tax that as a sin, not only is it an immense amount of wealth that can be tapped to fund the commons, but it also would drive down land values which is beneficial to the economy, and the citizenry as a whole
Posted:
#46
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
I recently heard a conservative say 'we should be taxing what we don't want (pollution/carbon) and not taxing what we do want (income ie productivity).'
Disco! buddy, you're finally coming around to my side. If only you hadn't held such personal grudges, you could have been here a year ago. Welcome
What we don't want, is monopolistic rents being funneled to private persons.
I think that anyone that finds interest in these conversations, needs to first educate themselves on the difference between TAXES and RENTS
I recently heard a conservative say 'we should be taxing what we don't want (pollution/carbon) and not taxing what we do want (income ie productivity).'
Disco! buddy, you're finally coming around to my side. If only you hadn't held such personal grudges, you could have been here a year ago. Welcome
What we don't want, is monopolistic rents being funneled to private persons.
I think that anyone that finds interest in these conversations, needs to first educate themselves on the difference between TAXES and RENTS
Let's not get carried away. 
Please remember I just put forward somebody else's opinion.
Please remember I just put forward somebody else's opinion.However, assuming one is in favour of environmental conservation and increasing productivity, then it makes sense to lessen (not necessarily eliminate) income tax, where lost revenue can be offset by a carbon tax. I support this notion as well as any conservative in favour of this type of approach. It's an idea. We all want lower taxes, it's a matter of taking a responsible approach. I believe this idea has merit and logically would achieve it's intended results.
Also, I do not hold a grudge against you. We just don't really speak the same language and hence we've had a bit of trouble communicating in the past. Which is why I generally think it's a good idea that we continue to stay out of each other's way. I'll do my best to maintain civility on the rare occasion we do interact, such as this.
No beef easy.
Posted:
#47
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
The entire "green" movement has been co-opted by BP, Chevron, and the energy cartels.
same as it always was. what doesn't get manipulated and co-opted. so everything the government touches turns to shit, at least for the rest of us. so remove the government from the equation. let the private sector, let the banks, run free. so the banks rape us. but what could the government really do to stop them. or, what would they do since it's impossible to distinguish the banks from the government. government means money now and how do candidates get there without the banks. how do the banks get free reign without the government. so what do we do about all of this?
Hot Forum Topics
