Bitcoin Forum
October 03, 2022, 06:15:06 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: 9-9-9  (Read 4575 times)
NghtRppr (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 252


Elder Crypto God


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:07:14 AM
 #1

So, I pay 9% of $300,000+ a year and you pay 9% of whatever McDonald's is paying these days?
1664777706
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664777706

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664777706
Reply with quote  #2

1664777706
Report to moderator
1664777706
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664777706

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664777706
Reply with quote  #2

1664777706
Report to moderator
You can see the statistics of your reports to moderators on the "Report to moderator" pages.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1664777706
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664777706

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664777706
Reply with quote  #2

1664777706
Report to moderator
1664777706
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664777706

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664777706
Reply with quote  #2

1664777706
Report to moderator
1664777706
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664777706

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664777706
Reply with quote  #2

1664777706
Report to moderator
ineededausername
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


bitcoin hundred-aire


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:16:33 AM
 #2

bitcoin2cash: Propose an alternative.

(BFL)^2 < 0
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4606
Merit: 10069


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:22:04 AM
 #3

And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1132


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2011, 03:29:57 AM
 #4

I like the way one of his competing candidates put it: when you turn this 9-9-9 plan upside down, the devil's in the details.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper or hardware wallets instead.
evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:30:13 AM
 #5

So, I pay 9% of $300,000+ a year and you pay 9% of whatever McDonald's is paying these days?

if you make 6 figures, 9% of your income has way less of an impact on your life than 9% from someone struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage. flat tax overwhelmingly favors the wealthy.

personally, im happy with a progressive tax system like we have now (only i would raise them back to clinton era levels).

not gonna be a popular opinion on this board, but there it is.

Vanderbleek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:53:42 AM
 #6

I've always been...baffled by why deductions exist. They seem like a blatant opening to game the system...they would be first on my list of things to go. Course as far as I'm concerned taxes should die in a fire, but I realize that's not going to happen.

Realistically I'd be pretty happy with pretty progressive income tax, no capital gains, state-set flat sales tax, and a "choose which science projects to fund" checklist.
NghtRppr (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 252


Elder Crypto God


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 12:36:16 PM
 #7

bitcoin2cash: Propose an alternative.

No taxes. Pay for what you use. Privatize everything.

if you make 6 figures, 9% of your income has way less of an impact on your life than 9% from someone struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage

What you mean to say is that you feel less guilty stealing 9% of someone's money if they have a lot of it.
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 12:57:52 PM
 #8

And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes.
Coinabul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500


Coinabul - Gold Unbarred


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
 #9

And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes.

Sometimes they promise to remove income tax when they bring in a VAT. The really evil part is when they don't and you are left paying income tax and VAT together.

Coinabul.com - Gold Unbarred
Website owners, let me put my ads on your site! PM me!
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 01:10:21 PM
 #10

bitcoin2cash: Propose an alternative.

No taxes. Pay for what you use. Privatize everything.

...snip...
Didn't we cover that in the fire-fighter thread and agree that some things, for example fire cover, work best if everyone contributes?

EDIT:
personally, I would have allowed the guy to promise to make the $2,000 payment if he really wanted it put out...but a fire company can let a house burn...

One problem with that is that if you do that then it might be the case that nobody will pay until their house is on fire and there won't be any money to maintain the service. It's kind of like the problem with health insurance. If you allow people with pre-existing conditions to join then nobody will join until they are sick.

I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 02:08:05 PM
 #11

The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 02:12:50 PM
 #12

The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.

The economic affects are not disasterous - the US is unusual in not having a VAT and its hard to argue that the US is better off as a result.  The transfer of the tax burden onto the poor is a fair point though.  In England, the combination of taxes on petrol, drink and tobacco with VAT means that the very poor have the highest effective tax rates.
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 02:24:49 PM
 #13

The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.

The economic affects are not disasterous - the US is unusual in not having a VAT and its hard to argue that the US is better off as a result.  The transfer of the tax burden onto the poor is a fair point though.  In England, the combination of taxes on petrol, drink and tobacco with VAT means that the very poor have the highest effective tax rates.
I would be happy with them regulating and taxing the middle-class and above with no inhibition as along as they left the little guy alone. The freedom of the proletarian is all that's left in this society. To be free to be self-sufficient with minimal means is a right that should still be enjoyed. It's something I would like to enjoy in bad circumstances...
evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 02:51:47 PM
 #14


What you mean to say is that you feel less guilty stealing 9% of someone's money if they have a lot of it.

no. no i don't. taxes aren't stealing.

Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 02:59:29 PM
 #15

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:04:07 PM
 #16

And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes.

How is stealing "less evil" than stealing?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:07:10 PM
 #17

The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.

The economic affects are not disasterous - the US is unusual in not having a VAT and its hard to argue that the US is better off as a result.  The transfer of the tax burden onto the poor is a fair point though.  In England, the combination of taxes on petrol, drink and tobacco with VAT means that the very poor have the highest effective tax rates.
I would be happy with them regulating and taxing the middle-class and above with no inhibition as along as they left the little guy alone. The freedom of the proletarian is all that's left in this society. To be free to be self-sufficient with minimal means is a right that should still be enjoyed. It's something I would like to enjoy in bad circumstances...

Wouldn't it just be better if the government left everybody alone?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
helloworld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:10:01 PM
 #18

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

But when a rich man invests in a really expensive bicycle, he's taxed regardless. And when a poor man invests $12.62 in penny stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:13:25 PM
 #19


What you mean to say is that you feel less guilty stealing 9% of someone's money if they have a lot of it.

no. no i don't. taxes aren't stealing.



Despite whatever privilege you think your government has, if someone (regardless of their title) comes to you and demands that you relinquish your property to them when they have no contract with you to do so, is coercion and plunder. Look thru the veil of obfuscation for a moment and step back and take a bird's-eye view of it. Now imagine you and two other people in the room with you. They could form a government. Why on earth should they ever have any greater permission to relieve you of your property than anybody else in the room?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:19:08 PM
 #20


What you mean to say is that you feel less guilty stealing 9% of someone's money if they have a lot of it.

no. no i don't. taxes aren't stealing.



Despite whatever privilege you think your government has, if someone (regardless of their title) comes to you and demands that you relinquish your property to them when they have no contract with you to do so, is coercion and plunder. Look thru the veil of obfuscation for a moment and step back and take a bird's-eye view of it. Now imagine you and two other people in the room with you. They could form a government. Why on earth should they ever have any greater permission to relieve you of your property than anybody else in the room?

Welcome back Fred.  Still not worked out the whole society concept I see.  Just to remind you, people do get together and act for their common good.  The action requires money.  Taxation is the mechanism used to pay for it.  You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too. 
evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:19:40 PM
 #21

Despite whatever privilege you think your government has, if someone (regardless of their title) comes to you and demands that you relinquish your property to them when they have no contract with you to do so, is coercion and plunder. Look thru the veil of obfuscation for a moment and step back and take a bird's-eye view of it. Now imagine you and two other people in the room with you. They could form a government. Why on earth should they ever have any greater permission to relieve you of your property than anybody else in the room?

They do have a contract with me. its called a social contract.

I expect the government to provide roads, schools, police, fire dept, military protection, care and support to the poor and disadvantaged, mediate legal disputes, regulate food and drugs, and enforce workplace safety conditions (among other things).

they expect me to pay taxes to help pay for those services, which i do happily.


EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
 #22

I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes.

How is stealing "less evil" than stealing?

I meant in the economic consequences. An act of theft may be worse than a different act of theft. Income taxes steal both from consumption and savings, while VAT spare savings. Savings play a fundamental role in economic growth. And those people who complain that VAT are regressive because poor people save less are failing to see that every saving is done with the intention of being consumed one day. Maybe by the saver's heirs, but it will be consumed.
A truly regressive "tax" is inflation.
helloworld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:24:05 PM
 #23

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too. 

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:26:23 PM
 #24

They do have a contract with me. its called a social contract.

I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:27:11 PM
 #25

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.
evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:32:30 PM
 #26


I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.


apparently, you dont understand the term social contract.

whether you want to admit it or not, you reap the benefits of government provided services, so you have to pay the price for them. 

GideonGono
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:47:58 PM
 #27


I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.


apparently, you dont understand the term social contract.

whether you want to admit it or not, you reap the benefits of government provided services, so you have to pay the price for them. 



Is the social contract of the USA not the US constitution? Where does it authorize the "services" mention earlier? If your logic is valid then 99% taxes are justified so long as the govt provides some "service" from which you "benefit." Ever since the constitution was instated, the govt has been steadily increasing it's spending and taxing. What kind of a contract is it when the terms change over time to increase your liability and still be valid? That makes no sense.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:50:07 PM
 #28

Welcome back Fred.  Still not worked out the whole society concept I see.  Just to remind you, people do get together and act for their common good.  The action requires money.  Taxation is the mechanism used to pay for it.  You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

Oh, I get the whole society "concept". There's nothing wrong with individuals collectively working together to achieve a goal. That's just like any association, or solidarity. Name your flavor (Rotary Club, Red Cross, Religious groups, Insurance companies, etc.). The same could be said of a government except that they too must form in a voluntary way otherwise it isn't free association anymore but force and coercion. That isn't what we call "consent to be governed".

I have no problem with spending money on any number of things, just so long as those activities don't infringe on the freedoms of others. As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:54:03 PM
 #29

Welcome back Fred.  Still not worked out the whole society concept I see.  Just to remind you, people do get together and act for their common good.  The action requires money.  Taxation is the mechanism used to pay for it.  You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too. 

Oh, I get the whole society "concept". There's nothing wrong with individuals collectively working together to achieve a goal. That's just like any association, or solidarity. Name your flavor (Rotary Club, Red Cross, Religious groups, Insurance companies, etc.). The same could be said of a government except that they too must form in a voluntary way otherwise it isn't free association anymore but force and coercion. That isn't what we call "consent to be governed".

I have no problem with spending your money on any number of things, just so long as those activities don't infringe on the freedoms of others. As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."


Spooner was wrong.  As we discussed earlier, you can own a dog but you don't have a right to set it on fire. 
evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 03:56:41 PM
 #30

Is the social contract of the USA not the US constitution?

social contract is a philosophical concept and/or political theory, not a legal document, so no. 
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:01:24 PM
 #31


I've never signed nor recognized such contract and yet they force me to give them money.


apparently, you dont understand the term "social contract".

I do know what authoritarians mean when they say 'social contract'. This guy makes a good irony on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQdw2K59x4&amp

It should be clear to anyone that such "social contract" is an illusion, invented to justify the unjustifiable.
You can't make a contract over something you don't legitimately own. And taking something by force, or building something using resources taken by force, isn't a legitimate way of owning anything. (and as that isn't enough, states attack whoever decides to compete with them in the same territory)

Governments would only be legitimate if they had been built voluntarily, with true contracts, since the beginning. And that's not the case for any state in this world, not even Monaco.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:11:41 PM
 #32

Spooner was wrong.  As we discussed earlier, you can own a dog but you don't have a right to set it on fire. 

Cute little furry rabbits aside, what part of Spooner's definition of property and ownership are you not in agreement with?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:14:03 PM
 #33

Spooner was wrong.  As we discussed earlier, you can own a dog but you don't have a right to set it on fire. 

Cute little furry rabbits aside, what part of Spooner's definition of property and ownership are you not in agreement with?

The part where he says you are entitled to torture and kill your pets.  Its a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:24:47 PM
 #34

The part where he says you are entitled to torture and kill your pets.  Its a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights.

What/where did you read that? I certainly didn't quote anything like that. Try again.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:36:03 PM
 #35

The part where he says you are entitled to torture and kill your pets.  Its a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights.

What/where did you read that? I certainly didn't quote anything like that. Try again.

I can't find the quote.  It was something along the lines of "If you own something, you can do as you please with it under natural law.." but I can't remember where I saw it Sad
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 04:56:13 PM
 #36

I can't find the quote.  It was something along the lines of "If you own something, you can do as you please with it under natural law.." but I can't remember where I saw it Sad

Why don't you just address what I quoted. It seems complete enough; at least within the context of theft, taxing, society, contract and property. Now try to justify your taxing entity. You can always find something somebody said that probably isn't perfectly spoken or written. Notwithstanding, that doesn't necessarily mean everything they said before or after that is a lie and untruthful. That would be just a teensy weensy bit harsh don't you think? I mean seriously, nobody's perfect.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 05:00:21 PM
 #37

I can't find the quote.  It was something along the lines of "If you own something, you can do as you please with it under natural law.." but I can't remember where I saw it Sad

Why don't you just address what I quoted. It seems complete enough; at least within the context of theft, taxing, society, contract and property. Now try to justify your taxing entity. You can always find something somebody said that probably isn't perfectly spoken or written. Notwithstanding, that doesn't necessarily mean everything they said before or after that is a lie and untruthful. That would be just a teensy weensy bit harsh don't you think? I mean seriously, nobody's perfect.

"As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

That is saying that you have the right to burn your dog and no-one has the right to stop you.  Which simply isn't true.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 05:09:12 PM
 #38

"As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

That is saying that you have the right to burn your dog and no-one has the right to stop you.  Which simply isn't true.

Can we just leave out the biological issue for the moment and focus on the inanimate object for a second? I love puppies too, so let's not go there just yet. Kapeesh?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 05:14:28 PM
 #39

"As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

That is saying that you have the right to burn your dog and no-one has the right to stop you.  Which simply isn't true.

Can we just leave out the biological issue for the moment and focus on the inanimate object for a second? I love puppies too, so let's not go there just yet. Kapeesh?

Is your house inanimate enough?  You own a house.  But if a road needs to pass through it, you lose ownership of the house.  Your ownership was a legal right until society decided that a greater good was at stake.
dustintrammell
VIP
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 156
Merit: 103


Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2011, 05:38:09 PM
 #40

And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

18% (9% on income, 9% on consumption) is still way less than what I'm paying now in Federal income tax.  It may not be perfect, but at least it's a step in the right direction...

Dustin D. Trammell
Twitter: @druidian
PGP: E0DC F55C 9386 1691 A67F FB18 F6D9 5E52 FDA6 6E16
dustintrammell
VIP
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 156
Merit: 103


Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2011, 05:42:08 PM
 #41

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

If someone invested in a bicycle to "increase their wealth", it becomes immediately apparent why they're poor.  "Things" generally depreciate in value, that's a horrible investment (:

Dustin D. Trammell
Twitter: @druidian
PGP: E0DC F55C 9386 1691 A67F FB18 F6D9 5E52 FDA6 6E16
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:09:17 PM
 #42

Is your house inanimate enough?  You own a house.  But if a road needs to pass through it, you lose ownership of the house.  Your ownership was a legal right until society decided that a greater good was at stake.

I kinda figured you'd say that. I suppose if society voted that all ugly people be put to death, we'd justify that one too, or slavery, or old age, or abortion, or eminent domain, or.... I could go on if you like.

You should draw the line at the initiation of force, otherwise government can (and will) grow without bounds. Look what we have now. It's a product of crossing the line on what the definition of property is. If you take other people's property for convenience sake, you will always be violated, ad infinitum.

Given the arbitrariness of involuntary governing practices, similar to what you suggest, ultimately marches us in the direction of tyrannical totalitarianism. It may not be in your lifetime, but it will eventually happen if we don't stand up and assert our rights. Most people only care about themselves and the here and now, unconcerned about what kind of future they will leave their children.

Will we ever learn from our past? I wonder sometimes.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:10:22 PM
 #43

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

If someone invested in a bicycle to "increase their wealth", it becomes immediately apparent why they're poor.  "Things" generally depreciate in value, that's a horrible investment (:

It's a great investment! You can get a better job, buy better goods, meet more people! I'm not suggesting the bike sits around doing nothing.
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:11:36 PM
 #44

The day McDonald's workers are hailed for a value of hundreds of dollar per hour is when leaves will be treated as currency.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:31:59 PM
 #45

Is your house inanimate enough?  You own a house.  But if a road needs to pass through it, you lose ownership of the house.  Your ownership was a legal right until society decided that a greater good was at stake.

I kinda figured you'd say that. I suppose if society voted that all ugly people be put to death, we'd justify that one too, or slavery, or old age, or abortion, or eminent domain, or.... I could go on if you like.

You should draw the line at the initiation of force, otherwise government can (and will) grow without bounds. Look what we have now. It's a product of crossing the line on what the definition of property is. If you take other people's property for convenience sake, you will always be violated, ad infinitum.

Given the arbitrariness of involuntary governing practices, similar to what you suggest, ultimately marches us in the direction of tyrannical totalitarianism. It may not be in your lifetime, but it will eventually happen if we don't stand up and assert our rights. Most people only care about themselves and the here and now, unconcerned about what kind of future they will leave their children.

Will we ever learn from our past? I wonder sometimes.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes people want to live in a totalitarian society.  History tells us that if given the choice, people vote to create societies that are pleasant to live in.  I strongly disagree with abortion but I am outvoted.  You strongly disagree with eminent domain but you are outvoted. Unless we are prepared to use violence, you have to accept that we are outvoted.   In both our cases, being outvoted is far preferable to resorting to violence, don't you agree?
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:38:04 PM
 #46

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:46:19 PM
 #47

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.

Add in a federal body for the stuff the small sovereign bodies can't really do alone and you would have a great idea for a constitution.
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:50:00 PM
 #48

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.

Add in a federal body for the stuff the small sovereign bodies can't really do alone and you would have a great idea for a constitution.
That's not even followed.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:54:40 PM
 #49

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.

Add in a federal body for the stuff the small sovereign bodies can't really do alone and you would have a great idea for a constitution.
That's not even followed.

The key thing is where sovereignty ultimately lies. I really like how the EU does it, for example, and wish my home (USA) was more like the EU in that respect. Its power is limited because membership remains optional.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 07:38:32 PM
 #50

The problem with your logic is that it assumes people want to live in a totalitarian society.  History tells us that if given the choice, people vote to create societies that are pleasant to live in.  I strongly disagree with abortion but I am outvoted.  You strongly disagree with eminent domain but you are outvoted. Unless we are prepared to use violence, you have to accept that we are outvoted.   In both our cases, being outvoted is far preferable to resorting to violence, don't you agree?

Those who vote in opposition to the theory of non-initiation of force (NAP) are resorting to violence. Being outvoted in my case means that society, via the ruling class, is voting to use violence against me. Who resorted to violence first? Should I not be able to defend myself in the same manner (violence for violence)?

See how the vote does nothing to protect the weak from the strong, or the minority from the majority when preventing violence? A vote seems so trivially superficial and meaningless in the end -to say nothing of it's non-binding nature- when it comes to me protecting what's mine.

You're smarter than this Hawker. You know it, and I know you know it. Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 07:43:16 PM
 #51

Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

This shouldn't be the goal of any discussion.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 08:00:20 PM
 #52

Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

This shouldn't be the goal of any discussion.

It isn't my goal, just a logical outcome. Just getting cute. Nothing personal.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 08:31:33 PM
 #53

The problem with your logic is that it assumes people want to live in a totalitarian society.  History tells us that if given the choice, people vote to create societies that are pleasant to live in.  I strongly disagree with abortion but I am outvoted.  You strongly disagree with eminent domain but you are outvoted. Unless we are prepared to use violence, you have to accept that we are outvoted.   In both our cases, being outvoted is far preferable to resorting to violence, don't you agree?

Those who vote in opposition to the theory of non-initiation of force (NAP) are resorting to violence. Being outvoted in my case means that society, via the ruling class, is voting to use violence against me. Who resorted to violence first? Should I not be able to defend myself in the same manner (violence for violence)?

See how the vote does nothing to protect the weak from the strong, or the minority from the majority when preventing violence? A vote seems so trivially superficial and meaningless in the end -to say nothing of it's non-binding nature- when it comes to me protecting what's mine.

You're smarter than this Hawker. You know it, and I know you know it. Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

The NAP is a fantasy.  Things like eminent domain are needed.  Courts are needed.  Pretending that a fairy land is possible doesn't get you anywhere in a world where real people have real problems.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 09:00:55 PM
 #54

The NAP is a fantasy.  Things like eminent domain are needed.  Courts are needed.  Pretending that a fairy land is possible doesn't get you anywhere in a world where real people have real problems.

I would like to believe my NAP fantasy has at least a sporting chance of greater justice and personal liberty, than the established force monopoly of government, which has already miserably failed in so many ways.

Another quote from Lysander Spooner to slake your insatiable "stately" beast:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of
consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without
his consent having even been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government
that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and
forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments.

He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He
sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving
himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds
himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a
master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative
than these two.

In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has
been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because,
to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not
to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing.

Neither in contests with the ballot—which is a mere substitute for a bullet—because, as
his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the
contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own
natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of
numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had
been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a
matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 09:12:22 PM
 #55

Fred - that argument is not new.  Humans are flawed and human institutions are flawed as well.  That's just the way things are.  You say to throw institutions that work well away in the hope that perfect institutions will emerge in their place.  I say that since we humans are flawed, whatever emerges will be less than perfect and therefore its better to work with what we have an try to improve it.
helloworld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 02:32:45 AM
 #56

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 08:01:11 AM
 #57

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.


You'll find it very hard to get elected on a platform of spending money that is raised by robbing trains.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 27, 2011, 12:57:27 PM
 #58

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.


You'll find it very hard to get elected on a platform of spending money that is raised by robbing trains.

That's an appeal to popularity, it doesn't resolve ethical problems. Not to say it proves you wrong, but it doesn't prove you right.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 01:21:02 PM
 #59

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.


You'll find it very hard to get elected on a platform of spending money that is raised by robbing trains.

That's an appeal to popularity, it doesn't resolve ethical problems. Not to say it proves you wrong, but it doesn't prove you right.

Sorry but if a more popular way of paying for public services than taxation comes along, its going to happen.  There is no ethical issue here - once you decide to spend money it has to be raised and the method is whatever the electorate will tolerate.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 27, 2011, 04:52:33 PM
 #60

Fred - that argument is not new.  Humans are flawed and human institutions are flawed as well.  That's just the way things are.  You say to throw institutions that work well away in the hope that perfect institutions will emerge in their place.  I say that since we humans are flawed, whatever emerges will be less than perfect and therefore its better to work with what we have an try to improve it.

You would be correct. There is no perfect justice or government because there are no perfect people. This is true, except to say that I would like to think that competition amongst competing private security firms might do a better job than those with monopoly-on-force contracts because they must meet the needs of those with whom they contract or else lose business.

Forced monopolies don't have to compete and so rarely consider improving. I suppose mob justice might arise, but even those organizations risk constant push-back by individuals and other security firms who consider such tactics unjust. Maybe it will all dissolve into a big civil war. Hard to say. We'll never know unless we try. Just a thought.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 05:14:11 PM
 #61

Fred - that argument is not new.  Humans are flawed and human institutions are flawed as well.  That's just the way things are.  You say to throw institutions that work well away in the hope that perfect institutions will emerge in their place.  I say that since we humans are flawed, whatever emerges will be less than perfect and therefore its better to work with what we have an try to improve it.

You would be correct. There is no perfect justice or government because there are no perfect people. This is true, except to say that I would like to think that competition amongst competing private security firms might do a better job than those with monopoly-on-force contracts because they must meet the needs of those with whom they contract or else lose business.
...snip...

I'm about to disappear for a few days - I'll leave you to ponder what happens when the private security firms are in conflict?  Its either permanent civil war or by a process of elimination a super powerful one emerges.  Anarchy or dictatorship - both are less pleasant than having heavily regulated policemen that do as they are told.

SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1005



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 05:23:53 PM
 #62

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.
Huh?

If you view the bicycle as an investment to buy and resell later, then the poor man can claim a capital gain or loss on sale.  If he claims a loss, he would pay no taxes on it, and could potentially offset prior or future income with said loss.

Otherwise, a poor man pays no taxes on the purchase of a bicycle (except sales taxes in some states, but talk to the state governments about that).

If you're talking about the money that was used to purchase the bicycle, well, think about it.  The poor man would have received money from a job he worked, paying taxes on it (or maybe not if he had enough deductions).  The rich man would have received money from prior investments, which he did pay capital gains taxes on.

So what's your point?  How are you correct in what you said?
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 27, 2011, 05:32:45 PM
 #63

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.
Huh?

If you view the bicycle as an investment to buy and resell later, then the poor man can claim a capital gain or loss on sale.  If he claims a loss, he would pay no taxes on it, and could potentially offset prior or future income with said loss.

Otherwise, a poor man pays no taxes on the purchase of a bicycle (except sales taxes in some states, but talk to the state governments about that).

If you're talking about the money that was used to purchase the bicycle, well, think about it.  The poor man would have received money from a job he worked, paying taxes on it (or maybe not if he had enough deductions).  The rich man would have received money from prior investments, which he did pay capital gains taxes on.

So what's your point?  How are you correct in what you said?

I am including sales taxes, such as the federal sales tax proposed by Cain. I didn't mean to imply that anyone would sell the bike, just that it would be a means of increasing future wealth.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49883.msg594593#msg594593
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 27, 2011, 05:37:15 PM
 #64

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.


You'll find it very hard to get elected on a platform of spending money that is raised by robbing trains.

That's an appeal to popularity, it doesn't resolve ethical problems. Not to say it proves you wrong, but it doesn't prove you right.

Sorry but if a more popular way of paying for public services than taxation comes along, its going to happen.  There is no ethical issue here - once you decide to spend money it has to be raised and the method is whatever the electorate will tolerate.

Just so I'm less confused, are you talking about "is" or "ought"?
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1005



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 05:55:58 PM
 #65

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.
Huh?

If you view the bicycle as an investment to buy and resell later, then the poor man can claim a capital gain or loss on sale.  If he claims a loss, he would pay no taxes on it, and could potentially offset prior or future income with said loss.

Otherwise, a poor man pays no taxes on the purchase of a bicycle (except sales taxes in some states, but talk to the state governments about that).

If you're talking about the money that was used to purchase the bicycle, well, think about it.  The poor man would have received money from a job he worked, paying taxes on it (or maybe not if he had enough deductions).  The rich man would have received money from prior investments, which he did pay capital gains taxes on.

So what's your point?  How are you correct in what you said?

I am including sales taxes, such as the federal sales tax proposed by Cain. I didn't mean to imply that anyone would sell the bike, just that it would be a means of increasing future wealth.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49883.msg594593#msg594593
Well, I certainly agree with you that sales taxes are a bad idea!  It just slows spending, which is not what we need...
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 07:40:42 PM
 #66

Well, I certainly agree with you that sales taxes are a bad idea!  It just slows spending, which is not what we need...

It is less bad to slow spending than savings. Sales taxes cause less damage than income taxes, if done on the same level.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1005



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 08:40:22 PM
 #67

Well, I certainly agree with you that sales taxes are a bad idea!  It just slows spending, which is not what we need...

It is less bad to slow spending than savings. Sales taxes cause less damage than income taxes, if done on the same level.
I disagree.

If you slow spending, you slow the entire economy, which means fewer jobs, fewer companies, and lower GDP/economic activity.  What happens if you slow savings?  People don't have as much to retire on?  Possibly more debt?
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 09:39:23 PM
 #68

Savings is what fuels investments and economic growth.
Nothing against consumption, but it just doesn't create economic growth.
An increase in consumption is the consequence of economic growth, not its cause.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!