Bitcoin Forum

For those who are wondering, no, this is not Dalkore's original work... He quoted Plato, but evidently forgot to use the quote tags.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but I know I would rather do and receive justice, rather than do injustice and get away with it. Maybe I'm just weird.

As to the origin of the state, that much is clear: being robbed of a small portion of your income at regular, predictable intervals is preferable to losing most, if not all, of it at random intervals.

You call taxes being robbed but maybe, just maybe you are upset that you were not around 224 years ago to be part of that debate. 

My position then would be the same as it is now: I'd rather not exchange one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away.

And it should be noted that until 1913, the US government's only source of income was tariffs and sales tax, with 40% of it's revenue coming from the tax on alcohol consumption. Which, as I have said before, i would have much less problem with. (especially since I don't drink)

I'm sure the slaves wished they were around 224 years ago for that discussion about slavery, too.

Well I support a more decentralized government, I think a state is around the limit for manageability. 

I also agree that we should not tax income and instead focus on capital gains, consumption and tariffs.

Yes, the slaves would [have] wanted to be at the table as well.

Tell me, what is the difference between income and capital gains?

Income is wealth you generated with your own direct energy.

Capital Gains is wealth you generated by investing it with another entity that invested on your behalf.

The key difference is the 3rd party.  You working as a clerk for an employer, income.   Investing into a corporation or bond and receiving proceeds from the appreciation or interest income, capital gain. 

Put another way, income is something you expended effort for, and capital gain is something you accepted risk for, yes?

So, you want to encourage (by not taxing) working for an employer and discourage (by taxing) investing. What do you imagine will be the result of that incentive set?

Actually my goal would be to taxing anything that can be used to compound their interest.  This features tends to concentrate control and influence over time and that type of central control should be taxed.  What we don't want to a rent-seeking class. 

So presumably you would also have large property taxes, with breaks for non-commercial owners, yes? Thus taxing heavily hotels and landlords? And of course, interest on loans would be considered "capital gains," right?

It would mainly depend on if you owned the building free and clear.  If you were in the process of purchasing it, it would not be considered capital gains yet.  Once you did own it, yes, I could see tax rates being different that a non-commercial property.

Interest on Loans would be capital gains.   I see profits from the sales of goods or services and healthier for an economy than profits from interest.

So, you're discouraging loans. You're discouraging investment. You're discouraging commercial property ownership. By discouraging these, you're also discouraging starting new businesses. Do you see this as beneficial to the economy?

You make it seem that people would not engage in these profitable activities, which is not the case. 

Economics rule#1: Incentives work. Yes, people will still do these things. But they will do them less often then without the tax structures.

I say again, do you see this as beneficial to the economy?

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. 

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.

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

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.

tl;dr

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

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?

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.

No, it's the only question that matters.

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

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. 

I think he finally gets it.

All I will say is good luck.

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

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.

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.   

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.

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.   

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.

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.