Does the money you earn belong to you or the state?

[The T]

Progressive taxation creates severe moral hazard.

Yes, progressive taxes totally prevent Bill Gates from wanting to succeed

Would you then support a value-added tax, like they have in Europe, which is a sales tax on everything?

I support a true sales tax, not a purchaser's tax. If it is a tax on sales, it should be payed by the seller. Then, too, would it take on a progressive nature. As is, the buying tax is a regressive tax that disproportionately effects those with the least income.

Also, would you agree that sales tax (paid by buyer) and excise tax (paid by seller) are identical, hurting the buyer and seller identically?

No. How does WalMart eating the tax a local city passes harm Wal-Mart or its employees the way the sales tax hurts those below the poverty level and already dependent on welfare or nearly at that point?

A proficient chess player knows when stalemate is inevitable.

It's not a stalemate. It's you throwing a tantrum and overturning the board.

I'm not sure philosophy has anything to do with your response, given your refusal to honestly defend you position.

Failed OUT of the gate...

 

[Rozman]

Democrats/Liberals/Progressives whatever name they go by these days believe that everyone else's money belongs to the State or the federal Government because who knows better how to spend the peoples money.

 

[JBeukema]

The only solution is to ask each man to give as he is able- to ask all members of society to contribute as they are able to ensure society as a whole can continue to thrive.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Great idea, uncle Karl.

That quote's not actually from Marx.


Do you expect a crippled man to frame houses- specifically to climb up the wall and catch the trusses so they can be nailed in place?

 

[JBeukema]

Democrats/Liberals/Progressives whatever name they go by these days believe that everyone else's money belongs to the State or the federal Government because who knows better how to spend the peoples money.

There are some things that can only be run by the State. You know, like the military or the interstate. Or a highway system linking the cities all together in one interwoven system.

 

[eagleseven]

Progressive taxation creates severe moral hazard.

Yes, progressive taxes totally prevent Bill Gates from wanting to succeed

Moral hazard: 51% of the country (the poor) gambling with the income of 49% of the country (the rich), without having any skin in the game, or risk to their personal income.

We see it already, with people thinking the President can solve all their financial problems by taxing the rich. Ya know, like making Bill Gates pay for my healthcare.

Moral hazard. Read up on it.

Also, would you agree that sales tax (paid by buyer) and excise tax (paid by seller) are identical, hurting the buyer and seller identically?

No. How does WalMart eating the tax a local city passes harm Wal-Mart or its employees the way the sales tax hurts those below the poverty level and already dependent on welfare or nearly at that point?

If I charge a 10% sales tax on a toy, the effective cost of that toy, to the consumer, will increase slightly less than 10%. How?

An immediate increase in price of 10% will decrease demand for said toy. Thus, Walmart will be forced to charge less for the item, so that the net change is greater than 0%, but less than 10%.

If I charge Walmart a 10% excise tax for selling that toy, the effective cost of that toy, to the consumer, will increase slightly less than 10%. How?

Walmart cannot make as much profit selling at the original price level, so they increase their price by 10%, compensating for the tax. That increased price will decrease demand for the toy, forcing Walmart to decrease their prices slightly. The net change in price for the consumer will be more than 0%, but less than 10% (just like in the sales tax).

Thus, taxing the buyer, and taxing the seller, are mathematically identical. In both cases, the buyer is forced to buy at a higher price, and the seller makes less profit while selling fewer items. The economy shrinks, and both buyer and seller are worse off. Lose-lose.

It's Microeconomics 101.

It's not a stalemate. It's you throwing a tantrum and overturning the board.

I'm not sure philosophy has anything to do with your response, given your refusal to honestly defend you position.

You're the one calling me an idiot while ignoring my substantive arguments.

Perhaps you could begin by thinking through the sales/excise tax paradigm I explained above? Or is that "off topic", too?

 

[2Parties]

The only solution is to ask each man to give as he is able- to ask all members of society to contribute as they are able to ensure society as a whole can continue to thrive.

Just be honest, people see through your bullshit. You aren't about asking, you are about taking.

What you are really saying (without the statist bullshit religion mixed in): The only solution is to to have some man X take from man Y as much as man X determines Y is able to be taken from - to have men X take from men Y as much as men X determine men Y can sustain to ensure that society can meet the men X's definition of what "thriving" is.

 

[JBeukema]

Moral hazard: 51% of the country (the poor) gambling with the income of 49% of the country (the rich), without having any skin in the game, or risk to their personal income.

What're you babbling about? You do know that federal income tax isn't the only tax, right?

You also realize that the means of taxation and specific spending ventures are two different matters, right?

You city and state have no income taxes? You buy nothing?

I know what moral hazard is; I've referred posters to Mises.org many times. I also know what bullshit is, and your posts in this thread carry its scent.

 

[JBeukema]

Statist? Am I a communist who wants the entire world to live like Twin Oaks or a Statist? You people need to make up your minds.

 

[2Parties]

You are a pseudo-intellectual who has no grasp on common sense.

 

[JBeukema]

You're the idiot who thinks communism can coexist with statism.

 

[eagleseven]

I also know what bullshit is, and your posts in this thread carry its scent.

Now you're the one dodging...suddenly lost your desire to discuss sales and excise taxes?

You do know that federal income tax isn't the only tax, right?

Considering I just was discussing sales and excise taxes, I suppose I do.

Are your playing the ignorant ape now?

You also realize that the means of taxation and specific spending ventures are two different matters, right?

The fact that spending is divorced from taxation in America is why we're fucked. The two are intricately linked, in reality.

Are you suggesting that the Congress that taxes is not the Congress that spends?

You city and state have no income taxes? You buy nothing?

What are you babbling about?

 

[2Parties]

You're the idiot who thinks communism can coexist with statism.

You are a pseudo-intellectual who has no grasp on common sense. Period.

 

[JBeukema]

Repeating you moronic statement doesn't change the fact that you're a moron.

 

[antagon]

That is CURRENCY, dumbass.
Money is earned.
Government PRINTS CURRENCY.
Government EARNS NOTHING.

if that's not the most pedantic shit i've seen in a while.

Truth doesn't have to be accepted. Still it doesn't change a thing about it being correct.

the truth is there is no practical difference between money and currency.

 

[antagon]

Clintoon makes me laugh for many reasons... One of them being how some Clintonistas have built up strong forearms holding up his picture...

Still, I do yearn for the gridlock that comes when one-party-rule fails... Thankfully, we're about to get that in a couple of weeks... Friggin' Sweet, huh?

this is just a demo that behind your rhetoric, you are a partisan hack without real interest in balanced budgets. i agree we could do with plenty more balance in government, but the complexion of politics at the moment is the result of a backlash against disingenuous 'conservatives' like yourself looking to spend future money rather than continue budget responsibility.

The more you post, the less sense you make... You sound like a child who thinks he has it all figure out, but the blinders he wears keep him from seeing the truth...

The upcoming backlash is against the failed policies of an entirely democrat controlled government... The backlash is against 0bamacare and bailouts and democratics who promised change, but only made things worse....

At some point you're going to have to wake up and face reality...

ETA: I want less spending, both now and in the future, dumbass....

now and in the future, but not in the past. you are a johnny-come-lately tax-cut-conservative hypocrite evidenced by your partisan disposition to clinton's budgets. you've already stated you think he's a joke, and in the context of fiscal responsibility, then contended that you want to keep more of your money like a bushite tax-cut leech on the future. faced with the devastation these policies afforded our economy, you lined up with partisan ranks with empty resolve to spend less. this didn't pan out when your heroes had control and were met with no opposition to the scale we see today. it is a political cycle. i'm not blind to the coincidence of fake political angst any given autumn. two years ago it went the other way. as an entrenched partisan, you are a hypocrite for participating in the farce of it all.

 

[antagon]

eagleseven, flat-taxes are macroeconomically inept, moreover the effective burden of tax is not flat, just the rate. i see sales tax and point of sales VAT as equally inept, and not likely a constitutional recourse of congress in the US. these are shit policies which only romania would combine. they do so out of cluelessness. the US tax system is one of the best laid in the world, and offers greater potential to support business while funding the largess than do other systems in place elsewhere.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Progressive taxation creates severe moral hazard.

Yes, progressive taxes totally prevent Bill Gates from wanting to succeed

Would you then support a value-added tax, like they have in Europe, which is a sales tax on everything?

I support a true sales tax, not a purchaser's tax. If it is a tax on sales, it should be payed by the seller. Then, too, would it take on a progressive nature. As is, the buying tax is a regressive tax that disproportionately effects those with the least income.

Also, would you agree that sales tax (paid by buyer) and excise tax (paid by seller) are identical, hurting the buyer and seller identically?

No. How does WalMart eating the tax a local city passes harm Wal-Mart or its employees the way the sales tax hurts those below the poverty level and already dependent on welfare or nearly at that point?

A proficient chess player knows when stalemate is inevitable.

It's not a stalemate. It's you throwing a tantrum and overturning the board.

I'm not sure philosophy has anything to do with your response, given your refusal to honestly defend you position.

I submit that sales ( buyer's) tax is NOT regressive.
Those who earn less, spend less. Therefore those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder pay LESS in sales tax. So actually those who earn more and spend more pay a proportionate share of sales taxes.

 

[loosecannon]

The only solution is to ask each man to give as he is able- to ask all members of society to contribute as they are able to ensure society as a whole can continue to thrive.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Great idea, uncle Karl.

It was actually Thomas Jefferson's idea

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Taxation

 

[loosecannon]

Chump?...are you sure you want to start a war of insults?...Should you think of going in that direction, I will warn you I am cruel crude and nothing is out of bounds.
There are no rules in a street fight. And you are about to start one.
Keep it civil.....You've been warned.. 'Nuff said.

Back to subject matter. You are acting like a know-it-all. In fact you are psoting as though you have access to an inner sanctum. I think you are embelishing. I also think you are taking facts and using your own interpretations.
You have posted things such as what appears on the top of a car title. I just looked at one of mine and it says no such thing about the state owning my vehicle. If what you claim is true then any official representing the state could in theory( yours) come to my home and without warning confiscate my vehicle at any time.
Or are you now going to back off and make statements that indicate I am now taking YOU out of context?
Which is it?

you are tarded.

THAT is your response? After all of your blather about who owns what ,how the government is basically the "company store" you come up with "you are tarded"?..
Most of us know that bringing a gun to a gunfight in lieu of a lesser weapon increases one's chances of success, tenfold..Guess you missed that meeting.
Now you can go pick on someone your own size and scream at them how you "schooled" them.
This is the major leagues ,pal. You're outclassed at this level.

yup, that is my response and it is more than you deserve. Somebody wastes their time trying to teach you a few simple facts about reality and you are not only so stupid that you can't listen, but you bite the hand that educates you.

There is an old maxim about arguing with ignoramammals like you:

Don't argue with a fool, other people may not be able to tell the difference.

 

[antagon]

I submit that sales ( buyer's) tax is NOT regressive.
Those who earn less, spend less. Therefore those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder pay LESS in sales tax. So actually those who earn more and spend more pay a proportionate share of sales taxes.

sales tax is certainly regressive. the ratio of tax to expendable income is higher for brokeasses.