[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if a consenting adult is made wealthy by the purchases/economic choices of other consenting adults, why should a government treat them any different than the non-wealthy? [/quote]
That is the logical conclusion.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Lixy wrote:
For one thing, the government’s role is to act in the interest of society.
It is? Because you say so? Now that’s not a fact. That’s your ideal.
If you can’t be bothered to take this discussion seriously, there’s no point taking it any farther.[/quote]
We just don’t take YOU seriously. Now go away.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wait: so because the rich weasel their way out of paying their taxes more often when the tax is higher, we should lower the tax? That’s what I’m getting out of this article.
That is correct. When you try to soak the rich they find ways to avoid it. They spend their money elsewhere.
That’s treating the symptom, not the problem. Tax code needs to be simplified, and most of the ways people shelter income need to be addressed.
I agree with this but the rich will always find places to hide their money. If they cannot do it here they will do it overseas.[/quote]
The poor try to avoid paying taxes also. Everyone does, it’s simple human nature.
All governments tax and all waste a large portion of the money they collect. Reducing tax payments increases productivity because the private sector makes better use of it’s capital.
Raising tax rates has been tried before and it always fails. Lower rates for all stimulate the economy. Look at the nations that have lowered tax rates in the last five years. If my inverstments do not compensate me for the risks I’m taking then I will withold those investments. Since I employ a number of people, my lack of investment may cost them their jobs. Higher tax rates lower my rate of return and therefore my propensity to invest in productive assets. If my customers, in turn, make that same choice then an economic downturn is looming.
Penalizing the most productive members of society to subsidize the least productive because they choose not to participate in the economy is idiotic. It’s also a cornerstone policy of the next messiah…Barack Hussein Obama.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if a consenting adult is made wealthy by the purchases/economic choices of other consenting adults, why should a government treat them any different than the non-wealthy?
They shouldn’t. That’s the point. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with sheltering their money via loopholes, just like the poor shouldn’t be allowed to if they were able.
Flat, simple tax.[/quote]
I agree with a flat tax (ie a consumption tax) if the income tax is repealed.
Having said that, to say “… they shouldn’t be allowed… via loopholes…” is ludicrous. They are following the law.
Poorly thought out laws are thusly poorly written and subject to “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. A so-called ‘loophole’ is a sour grapes response to poorly written law.
I take advantage of every legal tax/money loophole I discover. Why? Because it saves/earns me money and is legal.
At some point, there will be a tipping point where “wagon riders” outnumber “wagon pullers”.
Class envy is alive and well.
When more than 50 percent of voters are effectively paying no significant amount of income tax, there is little incentive for politicians to reduce spending.
It doesn’t even matter if only one dollar of benefit is derived from ever 5 dollars of government spending. It is a good deal for those who receive some of the benefits, but don’t have to contribute anything to the funding.
This is why those who run as small government libertarians don’t tend to get very many votes.
[quote]orion wrote:
Oh my.
I) Since the people are the majority and there is this question of “majority” how come anyone can confiscate part of my income?
Since in a democracy the government gets its legitimacy from the people and the people have no right to steal from me and nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet, how come the people can authorize the government to steal from me when they have no right to do it themselves? [/quote]
Because they can.
If you do not feel it’s profitable, take your business elsewhere. The fact that you don’t demonstrates you’re content with the status quo really, and the only reason you would complain about the government stealing from you is greed.
Finally, somebody with actual brains! It seems Sloth is having issues even understanding what I write.
I will disagree with it not being “a justification”. But then again, I believe in direct unadulterated democracy by the people. Never been a fan of plutocracies or the elites telling the unwashed masses what to do. Your mileage may differ.
[quote]III) There is no philosophical justification for the modern welfare state. None whatsoever, which is astounding given that it is a system that requires force to be implemented. One would imagine that people who care so much about others would refrain to enslave them to reach their own political goals and yet it is ok when those people are rich.
Or moderately wealthy.[/quote]
I don’t know about that, mate. I mean, surely one’s freedom should stop where it starts to infringe upon that of others. And I consider extravagant displays of wealth an infringement.
I also find it sad that nowadays, letting your money work for you became an ideal people aspire to.
But I guess I’m religiously biased on this topic, so let’s drop it.
[quote]IV) Please explain from what principles and values one can deduct the right to infringe on someone else´s property and therefore freedom?
What principles make it excusable to force someone else at gunpoint to work towards your goals or starve if he refuses that? [/quote]
The “starve” comment in the context of the US is risible, but to answer your question, it derives from the “people power”. And if you don’t like it, vote with your feet!
It’s kinda like how oil companies bitch and moan everytime the people’s representatives decide to cut their margins and yet, beg to retain their slimmed piece of the pie.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Oh my.
I) Since the people are the majority and there is this question of “majority” how come anyone can confiscate part of my income?
Since in a democracy the government gets its legitimacy from the people and the people have no right to steal from me and nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet, how come the people can authorize the government to steal from me when they have no right to do it themselves?
Because they can.
If you do not feel it’s profitable, take your business elsewhere. The fact that you don’t demonstrates you’re content with the status quo really, and the only reason you would complain about the government stealing from you is greed.
II) Yes, the average voter makes less money than the average income. So, yes it is trivial to see how an why a progressive tax system is implemented but that does not change its moral nature nor is it a justification.
Finally, somebody with actual brains! It seems Sloth is having issues even understanding what I write.
I will disagree with it not being “a justification”. But then again, I believe in direct unadulterated democracy by the people. Never been a fan of plutocracies or the elites telling the unwashed masses what to do. Your mileage may differ.
III) There is no philosophical justification for the modern welfare state. None whatsoever, which is astounding given that it is a system that requires force to be implemented. One would imagine that people who care so much about others would refrain to enslave them to reach their own political goals and yet it is ok when those people are rich.
Or moderately wealthy.
I don’t know about that, mate. I mean, surely one’s freedom should stop where it starts to infringe upon that of others. And I consider extravagant displays of wealth an infringement.
I also find it sad that nowadays, letting your money work for you became an ideal people aspire to.
But I guess I’m religiously biased on this topic, so let’s drop it.
IV) Please explain from what principles and values one can deduct the right to infringe on someone else´s property and therefore freedom?
What principles make it excusable to force someone else at gunpoint to work towards your goals or starve if he refuses that?
The “starve” comment in the context of the US is risible, but to answer your question, it derives from the “people power”. And if you don’t like it, vote with your feet!
It’s kinda like how oil companies bitch and moan everytime the people’s representatives decide to cut their margins and yet, beg to retain their slimmed piece of the pie. [/quote]
You still have not explained why those “people” have the right to take my money.
If you only answer is “because they can”, i.e “might makes right” you are also saying that they have to endure everything the rich have to dish out.
And you can trust the rich to be better at this game than the poor, that is why they are rich. And what should hold these people back, after all, if they can they practically should according to your logic.
The idea that the display of wealth is an offense that justifies stealing is like the argument that short hemlines justify rape.
In other words it deserves no real comment.
So tell us, of proponent of a tyranny of the majority, is there anything that cannot be subject to a vote?
And just because it deserves a special reply:
I do take my business elsewhere. I do not derive any income from work and corporate taxes are 25% in Austria. So my average tax is way below the Austrian average tax rate.
A lot of my money is not even in Austria and is therefore also not taxed her. Perfectly legal, all of it.
Not that I do not evade taxes illegally whenever I can.
And why not?
If they can steal from me just because they can, I can avoid that just because I can.
So what if you call that greed?
Have I not the right to be greedy?
Does my greed justify the use of force against me?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I agree with this but the rich will always find places to hide their money. If they cannot do it here they will do it overseas.[/quote]
A thread in which Zap, Orion, Sloth and myself are in quasi-agreement. I’m astounded.
Is sheltering money overseas illegal, legal, or just one of those things that the IRS ignores unless you’ve done something else illegal?
(PS: There are many times where I roll my eyes as everyone ignores Lixy’s actual points in favor of bashing his anti-American sentimentality. This is not one of those times. Sorry, Lixy, but it looks like Orion pretty much owns you in this thread.)
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I agree with this but the rich will always find places to hide their money. If they cannot do it here they will do it overseas.
A thread in which Zap, Orion, Sloth and myself are in quasi-agreement. I’m astounded.
Is sheltering money overseas illegal, legal, or just one of those things that the IRS ignores unless you’ve done something else illegal?
(PS: There are many times where I roll my eyes as everyone ignores Lixy’s actual points in favor of bashing his anti-American sentimentality. This is not one of those times. Sorry, Lixy, but it looks like Orion pretty much owns you in this thread.)[/quote]
The IRS always wants a taste so if it is your personal money it may be illegal. If you hide in in a corporation it is a different story.
Banks in Switzerland, Luxembourg and some other places generally do not give info to the IRS though.
But isn’t the bank you transfered from required to tell the government you’ve moved a lot of money out? Or is that just BS I’ve been scared into thinking <_<
One point every one is forgetting is all the other taxes that the poor pay just like the rich but are a greater percentage of the Poor�??s income. Example Gas tax, sales tax, all the taxes on electricity and all the taxes on phones and I am sure some one has a list of all the taxes we pay. And another tax people pay indirectly is everybody else�??s taxes. Example when you employ me I have to pay my own taxes so you pay more for your services
[quote]lixy wrote:
For one thing, the government’s role is to act in the interest of society. Seeing how the gap between the median and the top wealthy is insanely greater than that between the former and the lower casts. And there’s also this insipid notion of majority which the poor people represents. The answer to your question is trivial really.
Then there’s the morality of some having more money than they could spend in many lifetimes (even if they tried!) while others are homeless. But that depends on one’s principles, upbringing and other values, so I won’t expect this argument to resonate with you.
And oh, while we’re on the topic of how “consenting adult is made wealthy by the purchases/economic choices of other consenting adults”, you may want to take a look at the number of pushers in US jails. How you can bitch about mere taxation when people are put behind bars for selling grass to “consenting adults” is beyond me.[/quote]
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen posted about government. I actually feel dumber for having read it.
This is the classically masqueraded marxist viewpoint. The role of government is NOT to act in the interest of society. Therein lies the rabbit hole that leads to communism and the destruction of individual rights. The role of government is to protect individual freedom, provide for common defense and little else.
The very notion that the gap between the rich and other citizens (note the use of the word "classes here, remember who else used that term a lot? Oh yeah Marx, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao etc) is a problem is another classic Marxist notion. There are no “classes” only people who all have the same opportunities to create wealth.
There is also no moral quandary in one person having more money than they could spend in many lifetimes vs people being homeless. Both people are where they are because of the life choices they made with the opportunities presented to them.
Pushers are not in jail because they sold grass to consenting adults. They are in jail because they willingly sold an illegal substance in direct defiance of the law, knowing full well the consequences. Most are repeat offenders with many associated crimes (assault, firearms, theft, solicitation etc).
I’ve lived in China under the communist regime, I can quote Marx all day long. I’ve also lived in freedom loving countries including the USA. I can tell you without hesitation and with complete authority that people are where they are because of the choices they make and nothing else.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
But isn’t the bank you transfered from required to tell the government you’ve moved a lot of money out? Or is that just BS I’ve been scared into thinking <_<[/quote]
It depends on the amount of money and you don’t necessarily have to move the money from one bank to another. The money may come from a sale of something or cash payment for services rendered or any other host of things that will be hard to track.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
One point every one is forgetting is all the other taxes that the poor pay just like the rich but are a greater percentage of the Poor�??s income. Example Gas tax, sales tax, all the taxes on electricity and all the taxes on phones and I am sure some one has a list of all the taxes we pay. And another tax people pay indirectly is everybody else�??s taxes. Example when you employ me I have to pay my own taxes so you pay more for your services[/quote]
That is why sales taxes and the like on food and clothing are very regressive and why we should not require people of low income to pay an income tax.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
One point every one is forgetting is all the other taxes that the poor pay just like the rich but are a greater percentage of the Poor�??s income.
Example Gas tax, sales tax, all the taxes on electricity and all the taxes on phones and I am sure some one has a list of all the taxes we pay. And another tax people pay indirectly is everybody else�??s taxes. Example when you employ me I have to pay my own taxes so you pay more for your services
That is why sales taxes and the like on food and clothing are very regressive and why we should not require people of low income to pay an income tax.[/quote]
We agree
Just throwing this out there and would like some input:
So I hear all this whining about the dividing gap between the rich and poor in the US.
Well, having spent a little bit of time on earth, I’ve realized a few things:
- 90% of people do not actively plan how they will make lots of money
- 90% of people (like lixybitch) have idiotic and disgusting notions that accumulating wealth is bad and immoral.
- 90% of people are much more concerned with booze and drugs and TV and having a good time in the short term than actually laying the foundation for a financially successful life.
- The United States of America is such a kick-ass place that you can be relatively lazy, not exactly a genius, and STILL achieve financial success.
…So with all that in mind, what’s the problem with such a small number of people having the majority of wealth in the US? Sounds like the cream naturally rising to the top. And any time those with less money feel pissed about it, they are welcome to study how to make money in the US and take action on what they learn.
Beats the hell out of whining about it and trying to pass laws to force money where it shouldn’t go and fuck everything up worse.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
…
[/quote]
You got it backwards. The only people “whining” here are the give-the-rich-a-break crowd.
Read the thread again if you must.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
Just throwing this out there and would like some input:
So I hear all this whining about the dividing gap between the rich and poor in the US.
Well, having spent a little bit of time on earth, I’ve realized a few things:
- 90% of people do not actively plan how they will make lots of money
- 90% of people (like lixybitch) have idiotic and disgusting notions that accumulating wealth is bad and immoral.
- 90% of people are much more concerned with booze and drugs and TV and having a good time in the short term than actually laying the foundation for a financially successful life.
- The United States of America is such a kick-ass place that you can be relatively lazy, not exactly a genius, and STILL achieve financial success.
…So with all that in mind, what’s the problem with such a small number of people having the majority of wealth in the US? Sounds like the cream naturally rising to the top. And any time those with less money feel pissed about it, they are welcome to study how to make money in the US and take action on what they learn.
Beats the hell out of whining about it and trying to pass laws to force money where it shouldn’t go and fuck everything up worse.[/quote]
I think number three would be down in the single digits and I totally disagree with number 4