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. |
|
|
|
The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.
This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive. You know what's great at preventing your death? A gun on your hip. Or better yet, concealed in a pocket. Concealed carry in an area makes criminals not sure whether or not anyone's carrying, thus less likely to attack anyone. That is one of the best deterrents for sure. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.
This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive. Gang units are the closest things the Police have to proactive because of their use of informants on upcoming turf disputes, drive-bys and organized illegal purchases/sales. But this only works because gangs operate as an organized unit that you can track. Most violence is random or spur of the moment so this type of police would not be very useful in combat those situations. |
|
|
|
Just think about a football game without any rules, officials or even a standard field.
You do realise that footballers self-organise? They voluntarily play under standard rules. They're not forced to play "government football" under penalty of imprisonment. And they're free to invent and play a completely new game if they like. That was not part of the discussion, you're just parroting AnCap rhetoric. What we are talking about is this fascination of a utopian vision of a self-regulating markets that isn't corrupt or manipulated heavily. A market will happen in either a government or non-government but we I am saying is that under either system, they will face these problems unless you have some form a regulation. Sure anyone can play football, but what WE are talking about is Professional Football that has a large business economy around it. I swear some of these people have no sense on context when they read things. |
|
|
|
I realized last night that Bitcoin actually proves all the de-regulation folk in politics definitively wrong. Bitcoin is exactly what life is like without regulation. Scam after hack after implosion after scam after hack.....
Bitcoin is exactly what free market zero regulation looks like. An absolute mess.
Thank you. I have been trying to tell this to all these AnCap folks and they think it will be some utopia. Markets need some form of regulation or they get manipulated easily. Just think about a football game without any rules, officials or even a standard field. It would be more like chaos out there, not competition. |
|
|
|
Wrong question. No, it's the only question that matters. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Wrong question. No, it's the only question that matters. 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. 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. Because you like me are in a nation and those have laws that were around before we came into existence so our only option is either reform or revolt. I choose reform at this point. |
|
|
|
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.
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. 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 |
|
|
|
Around 10-19% seem to be a range I feel would be acceptable and would meet the needs of basic services. tl;dr Should other people be free to disagree with you, or should they be forced to comply with what you think is acceptable? 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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. What I am discouraging it centralization and concentration and of vast wealth into a group of the few that would make it their primary method of making profits off of rent-seeking and interest. Loans will still happen and the tax implication will be taken into account. Commercial property will still be owned. New business will still be started. Funny how you think this would not happen. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. To contrast with today, we tax both income and capital gains but favor capital gains. In this current system, it has centralized wealth in the few and widen the gap between the rich and poor. When you have large disparities in any society, it creates social problems that if left unchecked, usually end in a revolution of the poor against the rich rent-seeking class in that society. I am for wealth and having able people to accumulate wealth & capital, but the higher they go up the ladder in with widening gap, the tax laws should not encourage more centralization of wealth. Now if we see a reasonable gap with incomes in the bottom percentile increasing while the apex is getting larger (decentralized wealthy class), then taxes should not punish that behavior because that would tell me that the wealthy are being a good steward of those assets and resources. It is all about finding the right balance. You don't have capitalism so you have a few winners and a bunch of losers. When that happens it is called feudalism. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 of wanted to be at the table as well. |
|
|
|
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.
Sorry, I thought it copied it all, I fixed that for you. I wish was at the level to write dimes of knowledge like this. I thought it would be fitting for a discussion. @ Myrkul - Yes, I believe we all would prefer that but that doesn't happen without the injustice happening too. 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. |
|
|
|
|
The Nature and Origin of Justice (Quote by Plato):
"They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice;--it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being the middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy of being called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did."
Note: Maybe, just maybe, this is why we decided to form nations. And just maybe there was a time where men did volunteer to adhere to those laws & justice. Just maybe people who want AnCap are just here too late as to when their nations agreement happened.
|
|
|
|
Self Immolation:
Completely selfless political action.
Are you saying this bad or good? I would say that it is desperate and hopefully could be avoided but sometimes people should be able to make these types of messages. Sometimes through acts like this, you see real awareness, discussion and hopefully progress. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
