CDZ Tax Simplification, Who Will be the Losers

[Skull Pilot]

Taxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.

So there's that...

the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his labor

you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it

Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.

There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.

When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?

Why yes, yes it is.

Hence, income tax is immoral.

you labor is not taxed.

You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed

if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed

Your labor is a commodity that is all

and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

 

[eflatminor]

Taxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.

So there's that...

the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his labor

you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it

Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.

There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.

When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?

Why yes, yes it is.

Hence, income tax is immoral.

you labor is not taxed.

You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed

if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed

Your labor is a commodity that is all

and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his labor

you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it

Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.

There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.

When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?

Why yes, yes it is.

Hence, income tax is immoral.

you labor is not taxed.

You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed

if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed

Your labor is a commodity that is all

and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

 

[eflatminor]

Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.

There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.

When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?

Why yes, yes it is.

Hence, income tax is immoral.

you labor is not taxed.

You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed

if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed

Your labor is a commodity that is all

and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

Not with the modern welfare state you created, no.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you labor is not taxed.

You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed

if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed

Your labor is a commodity that is all

and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

Not with the modern welfare state you created, no.

Thanks for making my point.

I created?

Sorry Bub that was put in place before I was even born

I don't really have a problem with the income tax
I get taxed on the proceeds of anything I sell and the labor I sell is no different from anything else I sell

My only problem with the income tax is that it should be a flat tax and all income should be included

 

[eflatminor]

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

Not with the modern welfare state you created, no.

Thanks for making my point.

I created?

Sorry Bub that was put in place before I was even born

I don't really have a problem with the income tax
I get taxed on the proceeds of anything I sell and the labor I sell is no different from anything else I sell

My only problem with the income tax is that it should be a flat tax and all income should be included

Okay, common ground. I agree if we're going to have an income tax, it should be flat with no deductions. Do your taxes on a sticky note!

I will not agree taxing labor is akin to sales tax, no matter how much you insist labor is voluntary.

Good chat though.

 

[FA_Q2]

Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.

There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.

When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?

Why yes, yes it is.

Hence, income tax is immoral.

you labor is not taxed.

You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed

if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed

Your labor is a commodity that is all

and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

That is the contention here though - yes you actually do. As I pointed out earlier, to farm and hunt you need to purchase the 'right' to do so from the government in the form of taxes and fees on tags and land.

Where are you going to get that money - well from labor. Yes, you do, indeed, need to labor to live.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you labor is not taxed.

You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed

if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed

Your labor is a commodity that is all

and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

That is the contention here though - yes you actually do. As I pointed out earlier, to farm and hunt you need to purchase the 'right' to do so from the government in the form of taxes and fees on tags and land.

Where are you going to get that money - well from labor. Yes, you do, indeed, need to labor to live.

People hunt and grow food all the time without paying the government anything and I never said you don't have to labor to live I said you don't have to work for compensation to survive

 

[eflatminor]

Could not disagree more.

I never said ALL labor is taxed. Walking to the bathroom to take a shit requires 'labor'. The problem is one cannot survive without laboring for compensation (either money or trade), which is absolutely taxed and in most cases, handed to other citizens.

I must labor to live and the fruits of my labor are taken from me by, by armed government agents if necessary, and given to people with whom I have no contract nor relationship. That's forcing SOME men to support others. That's slavery and there's nothing more immoral than that.

The founding fathers understood this, but perhaps you know better.

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

That is the contention here though - yes you actually do. As I pointed out earlier, to farm and hunt you need to purchase the 'right' to do so from the government in the form of taxes and fees on tags and land.

Where are you going to get that money - well from labor. Yes, you do, indeed, need to labor to live.

People hunt and grow food all the time without paying the government anything and I never said you don't have to labor to live I said you don't have to work for compensation to survive

You just can't sell or trade the fruits of that labor, be it hunting or fishing, without being taxed and without your wealth being handed over to other people for whom you do not work. So, if you own a thousand acre estate, chalk full of game and rich in fertile waters, you're golden. Otherwise, you're working involuntarily for others, the basis of slavery.

I get you're okay with it. I find it immoral, offensive and wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

one can absolutely survive without laboring for compensation
how the hell did you think people survived before money was invented ?

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

That is the contention here though - yes you actually do. As I pointed out earlier, to farm and hunt you need to purchase the 'right' to do so from the government in the form of taxes and fees on tags and land.

Where are you going to get that money - well from labor. Yes, you do, indeed, need to labor to live.

People hunt and grow food all the time without paying the government anything and I never said you don't have to labor to live I said you don't have to work for compensation to survive

You just can't sell or trade the fruits of that labor, be it hunting or fishing, without being taxed and without your wealth being handed over to other people for whom you do not work. So, if you own a thousand acre estate, chalk full of game and rich in fertile waters, you're golden. Otherwise, you're working involuntarily for others, the basis of slavery.

I get you're okay with it. I find it immoral, offensive and wrong.

you don't have to trade them you can keep them for yourself

and I hate to tell you this but no one works for anyone involuntarily

 

[eflatminor]

Trade, which is compensation. The fair market value of property or services received through barter is taxable income.

You cannot separate the basic need for a man to labor in order to survive from the fact government forcibly redistributes the fruits of that labor to others. Since man must labor, forcing a man to work for others is in fact slavery. Immoral, reprehensible and antithetical to a free society.

Your Democrat ancestors didn't see it hundreds of years ago and you don't see it today. Let's hope the future is more enlightened.

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

That is the contention here though - yes you actually do. As I pointed out earlier, to farm and hunt you need to purchase the 'right' to do so from the government in the form of taxes and fees on tags and land.

Where are you going to get that money - well from labor. Yes, you do, indeed, need to labor to live.

People hunt and grow food all the time without paying the government anything and I never said you don't have to labor to live I said you don't have to work for compensation to survive

You just can't sell or trade the fruits of that labor, be it hunting or fishing, without being taxed and without your wealth being handed over to other people for whom you do not work. So, if you own a thousand acre estate, chalk full of game and rich in fertile waters, you're golden. Otherwise, you're working involuntarily for others, the basis of slavery.

I get you're okay with it. I find it immoral, offensive and wrong.

you don't have to trade them you can keep them for yourself

and I hate to tell you this but no one works for anyone involuntarily

I get that. Good luck surviving off the land in your quarter acre lot.

Lastly, I get you don't see it, but you're making my point. The vast majority of us must work to survive and when we work, we are involuntarily handing over the fruits of that labor to others by law. Slaves used to work plenty but didn't to keep any fruits of their labors. Now the bosses take about half, depending on where you live.

Half a slave is still a slave and it's still immoral.

 

[Skull Pilot]

your arguing in semantics

one does not have to work for compensation in order to survive

That is the contention here though - yes you actually do. As I pointed out earlier, to farm and hunt you need to purchase the 'right' to do so from the government in the form of taxes and fees on tags and land.

Where are you going to get that money - well from labor. Yes, you do, indeed, need to labor to live.

People hunt and grow food all the time without paying the government anything and I never said you don't have to labor to live I said you don't have to work for compensation to survive

You just can't sell or trade the fruits of that labor, be it hunting or fishing, without being taxed and without your wealth being handed over to other people for whom you do not work. So, if you own a thousand acre estate, chalk full of game and rich in fertile waters, you're golden. Otherwise, you're working involuntarily for others, the basis of slavery.

I get you're okay with it. I find it immoral, offensive and wrong.

you don't have to trade them you can keep them for yourself

and I hate to tell you this but no one works for anyone involuntarily

I get that. Good luck surviving off the land in your quarter acre lot.

Lastly, I get you don't see it, but you're making my point. The vast majority of us must work to survive and when we work, we are involuntarily handing over the fruits of that labor to others by law. Slaves used to work plenty but didn't to keep any fruits of their labors. Now the bosses take about half, depending on where you live.

Half a slave is still a slave and it's still immoral.

You'd be surprised how much food you can grow on a small lot.

And you are not involuntarily doing anything

you agree to sell your labor to a buyer for an agreed upon price. You can at any time stop selling your labor to any other person or you can sell your labor to multiple buyers.

The person to whom you are selling your labor provides you not only the place but the materials to work with so the fruit of your labor is the money he pays you for your time and skill

you basically pay tax on the profit you make on the voluntary sale of your labor

Just like you would selling any other commodity

 

[eflatminor]

That is the contention here though - yes you actually do. As I pointed out earlier, to farm and hunt you need to purchase the 'right' to do so from the government in the form of taxes and fees on tags and land.

Where are you going to get that money - well from labor. Yes, you do, indeed, need to labor to live.

People hunt and grow food all the time without paying the government anything and I never said you don't have to labor to live I said you don't have to work for compensation to survive

You just can't sell or trade the fruits of that labor, be it hunting or fishing, without being taxed and without your wealth being handed over to other people for whom you do not work. So, if you own a thousand acre estate, chalk full of game and rich in fertile waters, you're golden. Otherwise, you're working involuntarily for others, the basis of slavery.

I get you're okay with it. I find it immoral, offensive and wrong.

you don't have to trade them you can keep them for yourself

and I hate to tell you this but no one works for anyone involuntarily

I get that. Good luck surviving off the land in your quarter acre lot.

Lastly, I get you don't see it, but you're making my point. The vast majority of us must work to survive and when we work, we are involuntarily handing over the fruits of that labor to others by law. Slaves used to work plenty but didn't to keep any fruits of their labors. Now the bosses take about half, depending on where you live.

Half a slave is still a slave and it's still immoral.

You'd be surprised how much food you can grow on a small lot.

And you are not involuntarily doing anything

you agree to sell your labor to a buyer for an agreed upon price. You can at any time stop selling your labor to any other person or you can sell your labor to multiple buyers.

The person to whom you are selling your labor provides you not only the place but the materials to work with so the fruit of your labor is the money he pays you for your time and skill

you basically pay tax on the profit you make on the voluntary sale of your labor

Just like you would selling any other commodity

I fully understand your point of view, I just do not agree with it. You see labor as a commodity to voluntarily sell and the remuneration you receive akin to profit, subject to tax.

I see labor as a fundamental requirement for life and that no government should have the right to take the fruits of my labor for any reason, much less the forcible redistribution to others.

I think we've beaten this dead horse all we can. Thanks.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That is the contention here though - yes you actually do. As I pointed out earlier, to farm and hunt you need to purchase the 'right' to do so from the government in the form of taxes and fees on tags and land.

Where are you going to get that money - well from labor. Yes, you do, indeed, need to labor to live.

People hunt and grow food all the time without paying the government anything and I never said you don't have to labor to live I said you don't have to work for compensation to survive

You just can't sell or trade the fruits of that labor, be it hunting or fishing, without being taxed and without your wealth being handed over to other people for whom you do not work. So, if you own a thousand acre estate, chalk full of game and rich in fertile waters, you're golden. Otherwise, you're working involuntarily for others, the basis of slavery.

I get you're okay with it. I find it immoral, offensive and wrong.

you don't have to trade them you can keep them for yourself

and I hate to tell you this but no one works for anyone involuntarily

I get that. Good luck surviving off the land in your quarter acre lot.

Lastly, I get you don't see it, but you're making my point. The vast majority of us must work to survive and when we work, we are involuntarily handing over the fruits of that labor to others by law. Slaves used to work plenty but didn't to keep any fruits of their labors. Now the bosses take about half, depending on where you live.

Half a slave is still a slave and it's still immoral.

You'd be surprised how much food you can grow on a small lot.

And you are not involuntarily doing anything

you agree to sell your labor to a buyer for an agreed upon price. You can at any time stop selling your labor to any other person or you can sell your labor to multiple buyers.

The person to whom you are selling your labor provides you not only the place but the materials to work with so the fruit of your labor is the money he pays you for your time and skill

you basically pay tax on the profit you make on the voluntary sale of your labor

Just like you would selling any other commodity

Well, yes and no. Labor, in general, adheres to the principles of supply and demand; however, with each passing decade, we see our economy's labor market take on ever more monopsonistic qualities. No, the labor market is not overall monopsonistic, but in certain locales, it is and in plenty of them, it may as well be. Also, for laborers in certain primary market industries that require highly specialized and highly advanced skills, skills that require a lot of formal education or a fair amount of experience or both, though the industry structure isn't monopsonistic as a whole, it is vertically compartmentalized so that, among its respective markets for labor, it may as well be.

The short is that the labor market follows the laws of supply and demand, but many sellers of labor, to their peril, do not exhibit the rational behavior as informed by positive economics. Faced with the existential cascade found in the dual labor market, policy makers must define macroeconomic policy based materially on "something" having empiricism's backing. It is the 21st century, after all. The available options derive broadly from Keynesian, Marxist, or Darwinist/Smithian principles. Alternatively, they might flip the beast and drive economic policy using Historic-Structural theory or the World-System theory, thereby having to implement fix upon fix to ameliorate such an approaches overall lack of comprehensiveness. I suppose too one could try "mixing a bit of this what some of that," though one hopes the lessons learned from the folly of Ptolemaic "science" dissuades them even as the pull of politics do not.

In light of those considerations and option, how do you propose be closed the gap between the classical labor theory you've described above and dual labor market theory?

 

[Picaro]

If that's true, please explain the profitability of H & R Block and the rest of their industry.

My Grandfather and father were CPA's; I got to do all the short forms while they did the oil and gas, and farm stuff starting when I was 12. The profitability comes from the illiterates and lazy. In the last few years, electronic filing and people wanting everything right now has them rushing to H&R Block to cut a couple of weeks off of getting their refund checks; they will pay a nice premium for that couple of weeks. And, there are the lazy and illiterates still around creating a market for those services, many more than before, in fact. I've commented more than once on how obvious it is that people around here running around whining about this or that about taxes have obviously never filed their own taxes, they don't know squat about what they're talking about and just repeating some gibberish that sounds good they read on some fever swamp site somewhere. They have no idea what their adjusted tax rate is, and seem to think the Fed is a bigger problem than their local and state taxes are. It's easy to spread manure on already fertile ground. I bought my first car from the money doing short forms on weekends during tax season, and a lot more besides. Easiest money I ever made.

The resources We spend on doing the paperwork to live here is making us look stupid from space. It's no wonder we get so few visitors....

Yes, it was so much better when we had kings, and they would send tax farmers around who had the power to personally decide what they felt like taking and how much. It was all privatized, which I'm given to understand from the constant harping of right wing ideologues is magically just wonderful and stuff. In the case of tax farmers I'm certain privatization was indeed much more 'efficient' and highly profitable in 'the good old days'.