The morality of taxation

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:01 am

UrGod wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
UrGod wrote:Taxation falls easily within the definition of theft.

If you want to participate in our economy in order to generate profits far exceeding that of average folks by taking advantage of the fact that we have a LOT of average folks, then you have to pay your dues which guarantee we will always have a LOT of average folks (middle class) and failure to pay is theft. You're stealing from the ecosystem and not giving back like a farmer sucking resources from the land and not refertilizing... and it would end the same way.


You do realize that taxation is regressive, right? And that it isn’t necessary that I be taxed in order for me to work freely and produce profits for myself and my employer. No one needs to be taxed, except that we need to find a way to fund social systems and governments and the theft of taxation is basically the only way anyone has discovered how to do that.

I'm against income taxes myself however there is nothing wrong with all other forms of taxes.

Stop being an ignorant anarchist that wants to enjoy the benefits of society living in it without contributing anything. You can't have both.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:01 pm

I already noted that taxation is the only way we have found so far to fund social services and government.

Apparently you don't know how to read.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Serendipper » Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:27 am

UrGod wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
UrGod wrote:Taxation falls easily within the definition of theft.

If you want to participate in our economy in order to generate profits far exceeding that of average folks by taking advantage of the fact that we have a LOT of average folks, then you have to pay your dues which guarantee we will always have a LOT of average folks (middle class) and failure to pay is theft. You're stealing from the ecosystem and not giving back like a farmer sucking resources from the land and not refertilizing... and it would end the same way.


You do realize that taxation is regressive, right?

I'm not sure... what do you mean by regressive?

And that it isn’t necessary that I be taxed in order for me to work freely and produce profits for myself and my employer. No one needs to be taxed, except that we need to find a way to fund social systems and governments and the theft of taxation is basically the only way anyone has discovered how to do that.

If everyone worked for themselves, such as fur-trappers, metal smiths, farmers, coopers, etc, then there would be no need for taxation except maybe to fund a police force or some social function. The problem arises when people work FOR someone else.

To see how that is true, you first have to imagine an economy on a gold standard where the amount of money is fixed because gold is too limited. Now, when one more person is born, where does the gold come from for that new person to have in the economy? If the population expands, the money supply has to keep up or there is not enough money to go around. That is especially true if people are expected to get richer over time, as with investments and savings accounts. So we have new people being born and the older ones getting richer with time and that demands new money.

The next problem is employment because no employer would hire anyone unless that person can make money for him. So by definition of employment, money transfers uphill, which means the money would run out on the bottom unless the supply were being expanded.

Lets make a math problem from it. Let's say there is an self-contained island with 10,000 coins on it. If there is a man who employs a worker to help make widgets that he sells for 10 coins/day and he pays the employee 3 coins/day and spends 3 coins/day on supplies, then he makes 4 coins/day profit. Of that 4, he spends 2 coins back into the economy on entertainment and food or whatever. He saves the remaining 2 coins/day in a pile. How many days until he has all the coins on the island? (or all of them to the point that no one can afford to pay 10 coins for his widget)

Solving the problem isn't important, but the point is that he will have most-all the coins eventually and that is because of employment.

To see how that is true, let's outlaw employment so the men split up and make their own widgets for their own money. In that case, each man will be in competition with the other and each will see less demand, so they make less profit and no one man is able to monopolize the money supply. Only through employment can one monopolize the supply of money. This is what nobody seems to realize. You could never acquire all the money by being a black smith or cooper or farmer or anything that you can do as a trade because you are only one person; only through employing others can it be done and that can only be explained by an inherent theft of productivity that has occurred.

In reality, we can't expect each person to trap furs and mine gold considering how many people exist on the planet. Employment is a necessity of life; that is, working to make someone else rich is necessary for your own existence. But, we've just demonstrated that the money will run out if something is not done to remedy the problem.

So our choices are: Print more money or redistribute through taxation.

So far, the printing of money has only benefited the rich which undermines its own purpose. Since the poor do not own stocks and bonds, the only means to give them money is to hand it to them, which is too unpalatable for society. Giving it to Goldman Sachs is preferable for some reason.

That leaves taxation as the only means of replenishing the supply of money on the lower tiers, but that is also unpalatable on the basis of "fairness".. and that it's "theft"... stealing from the productive to give to the unproductive. Yeah, but, if you don't, then how will people have money to buy your products? Where will the money come from? Not wages because for every dollar earned by an employee, the employer gets a cut and the math problem shows us that money runs out under that scheme.

Without taxation, the middle class would go extinct. It would be a 2-class system of extremely rich and everyone else would be dirt poor. Like what existed before FDR.

So taxation couldn't possibly be immoral, since it benefits society. If anything is immoral, it's employment and the theft of taxation rights the wrong which is the theft of the earnings of the people who did the work in the first place and caused the class distortions. But without that theft of earnings, there wold be no incentive to employ. If you can't make me money, why hire you? In order words, if I can't steal some of your money, then why hire you?

The best solution is to let the employer steal money from the employee and then steal it back through taxation. It keeps the carrot in front of the horse.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:52 pm

Anything can be used as currency, I wasn’t talking about fiat currency, I was talking about taxation. I don’t want to go back to gold coins or barter days, that would be idiotic.

Taxation had nothing to do with whatever currency system you have. Currency is just a medium of exchange of value, a common denominator that allows direct trade of values made. Again, taxation has nothing to do with any of that. You can have a currency exchange system like that where someone else comes in between you and the other party with whom you’re trading, and take a cut of the currency that is exchanged between you, or that cannot happen. If I buy something from a dude in his garage sale and give him cash, no one is coming in between that transaction to tax it. There is literally no reason why all transactions could not be like that, except that we need a way to generate funds for social services and government functions. I’m open to ideas other than taxation, because as I already said, when someone else comes in between me and the other person with whom I’m freely transacting, pulls out a gun and demands I give them a percentage of the transaction, that is theft. And that is exactly what taxation is. The gun might be deferred, but if you don’t pay taxes you either literally cannot buy/sell in the market or down the road you will get arrested for tax evasion.

Taxation is regressive, this means that taxes negatively impact poorer people more than richer people. Take a 10% tax rate on someone making $20k a year versus someone making $200k a year; the $2000 you take from the poorer person has a lot more immediate, important and desperate value to him than does the $20,000 you take from the richer person, because at the end of the day the poorer person has $18,000 and the richer person has $180,000. Same tax rate. I’m sure that rich guy could have found great use for that extra $20,000, but the poor guy really needed it because on $18,000 you can barely survive.

This is why we have progressive tax rates. But even these are still regressive, and to the point the progressive tax rates become steep enough to arguably stop being regressive they also approach the point of absurdity; for example, poor guy from above gets a 5% tax rate while the rich guy gets 50% tax rate, so the poor guy has to pay $1000 out of his income and ends up with $19,000, rich guy has to pay $100,000 and ends up with $100,000. You can see how this is still regressive in nature, the poor guy could do a lot with an extra grand in his pocket, out of sheer immediate need, while the rich guy obviously would want that extra $100k but after paying his taxes he still had $100k left over.

Increase even further: poor guy pays no tax, rich guy pays 75% like under some kind of Bernie Sanders plan. Now poor guy is happier getting all his money he really does need, while rich guy has to pay $150k in taxes and has $50k left over. Maybe this seems more balanced to some people, but it’s absurd, because you have a guy creating value in the economy on par with a $200k salary who only actually makes 1/4 of that, and he is totally funding someone else to pay no taxes at all. It becomes irrational at the point you have a small number of people at the top basically funding the entire government.

Also it’s basically irrational to have different tax rates for different people. If you earn more salary that means you’re freely being paid by an employer or customers commensurate with the overall value you are creating in the economy. So it’s already “balanced out”: poor guy creates net value in the economy commensurate with a $20k salary, rich guy creates net value in the economy commensurate with a $200k salary. Once you divide out their salaries by the net value they are generating for the economy as a whole, it cancels out. So the idea of progressive tax rates is irrational at face value, because you’re actually taking more real value out of the upper tiers of the economy where more net value is being generated into and as the economy as a whole. There is no reason why someone making $200k “needs to pay more” as a percentage of income to taxes than someone making $20k, because both of those people are working to create value in the economy at exactly commensurate ratios, assuming a broadly free market system where employment and economic transactions are freely engaged in or not.

On the issue you raise of money supply, the money supply does naturally expand over time, even if you have gold coins. People find more gold, and exchange gold with other countries and economies. The total supply of gold is always going to be larger than the value-producing nexuses centered within economic spheres, so there is a flow of gold to these nexuses and which naturally distributes around each nexus in rings emanating from the center. That’s just how it works. But the question is moot anyway since we don’t use gold coins, we can just print more money as needed to reflect the increase of value which the economy is producing; this is about increase of value, not physical money supply. If you didn’t print more money, or if you only printed more money on par with however much money was destroyed or lost ever year, so that the money supply remains the same from year to year, there would still be growth in the economy because there is growth in value created, and the result would be that the relative value of each unit of money would go up. To try and keep the value of each unit more or less the same over time you have to slowly inflate the money supply over time, to keep pace with all of the new value being created. Obviously our politicians are printing way more money than needed to achieve this balance, because the relative value of each unit of money is going down over time.

Money is just a symbolic representation of realvalue created. That’s all it is. Money is not value, it is a symbol of value and a common means of transacting and trading values.

And you are fundamentally mistaken about the nature of work. The employer does not “steal” money or profit from the worker, rather the worker rents the employer’s capital and means of production in order to be able to work to produce more net value than the worker could do on his own, and the employer pays the worker a salary for that. The salary has to be agreed upon by both parties, in a free (non-communist, non-socialist, non-authoritarian) economy. In a free economy the worker is free to leave employment if he doesn’t think his salary is good enough. In reality, Marx is deeply wrong about the nature of work as surplus-value: Marx said that the employer steals surplus-value from the worker and this is the source of profit, when in fact people want to give their surplus-value to a meaningful enterprise and the source of profit is three-fold: 1) free giving of surplus-value by human beings either in work or in their daily lives, 2) refinement of existing processes of production (increase in technology, etc), or 3) discovery of more resources able to be fed as inputs into existing processes of production thus creating more products, more values.

People want to give their energy and surplus-value. That is how we are. We freely give our surplus-value and work-effort, our “poeisis” as Parodites said, in many different ways. People want to work, they want to generate value in the world and they want to get paid for doing that because “getting paid” is symbolic of that value of made. If you want to get paid more money then you need to start making more value in the world.
Last edited by URUZ on Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:01 pm

Leftists talk about how happy they are to pay more taxes, well you don’t need a tax law and system of tax collection to pay more in taxes, just mail a check to the IRS. They will happily cash it. Of course none of these leftists does that, because they’re all talk. It’s just psychological games for them.

No rich leftist who pretends to be so happy to pay more in taxes because the tax rates went up, is going to keep voluntarily giving that extra money to the government if the tax rate were to go down. It’s bullshit and lies, it’s fucking politics, people. Open your fucking eyes.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:22 pm

UrGod wrote:Anything can be used as currency, I wasn’t talking about fiat currency, I was talking about taxation. I don’t want to go back to gold coins or barter days, that would be idiotic.

Oh I know, I was just illustrating why a money supply needs to grow and be redistributed. In order to show that, I had to use a fixed money supply as example.

If I buy something from a dude in his garage sale and give him cash, no one is coming in between that transaction to tax it.

Right, I agree with that because the prime purpose of taxation is redistribution and therefore a tax on the poor doesn't make any sense. Therefore all flat-taxes (ie sales tax, gas tax, etc) are without purpose. Trump wanting to hike the gas tax is a tax on the poor as much as anyone.

There is literally no reason why all transactions could not be like that, except that we need a way to generate funds for social services and government functions. I’m open to ideas other than taxation, because as I already said, when someone else comes in between me and the other person with whom I’m freely transacting, pulls out a gun and demands I give them a percentage of the transaction, that is theft.

Yeah I see what you mean. Sales tax is a shake-down by the state. I mean, there probably are redistributive values in it since the rich probably do buy more, but redistribution is better-handled by the income tax because sales tax cannot take income into account and is therefore a tax also on the poor. There is no way to not tax the poor by using a sales tax.

And that is exactly what taxation is.

It appears you're right, except the income tax which rights the wrong of the theft of income through employment. All other taxes are therefore theft without justification. Maybe a minor property tax is ok to pay for roads and schools since the more property one owns, the richer they probably are while the poor probably rent.

Taxation is regressive, this means that taxes negatively impact poorer people more than richer people. Take a 10% tax rate on someone making $20k a year versus someone making $200k a year; the $2000 you take from the poorer person has a lot more immediate, important and desperate value to him than does the $20,000 you take from the richer person, because at the end of the day the poorer person has $18,000 and the richer person has $180,000. Same tax rate. I’m sure that rich guy could have found great use for that extra $20,000, but the poor guy really needed it because on $18,000 you can barely survive.

That's a good observation and I'm totally down with that.

This is why we have progressive tax rates. But even these are still regressive, and to the point the progressive tax rates become steep enough to arguably stop being regressive they also approach the point of absurdity; for example, poor guy from above gets a 5% tax rate while the rich guy gets 50% tax rate, so the poor guy has to pay $1000 out of his income and ends up with $19,000, rich guy has to pay $100,000 and ends up with $100,000. You can see how this is still regressive in nature, the poor guy could do a lot with an extra grand in his pocket, out of sheer immediate need, while the rich guy obviously would want that extra $100k but after paying his taxes he still had $100k left over.

Seems right.

Increase even further: poor guy pays no tax, rich guy pays 75% like under some kind of Bernie Sanders plan. Now poor guy is happier getting all his money he really does need, while rich guy has to pay $150k in taxes and has $50k left over. Maybe this seems more balanced to some people, but it’s absurd, because you have a guy creating value in the economy on par with a $200k salary who only actually makes 1/4 of that, and he is totally funding someone else to pay no taxes at all. It becomes irrational at the point you have a small number of people at the top basically funding the entire government.

I see what you're saying, but we have ceos making 400x what their own average employee makes. They could pay 90% and still live like kings.

What is it they say??? 90% of the taxes are paid by 20% of the people? By your own fairness reasoning, why not make them pay the other 10% of the taxes because they wouldn't notice while the bottom 80% of people would certainly notice if they paid no taxes.

Check out the table of historical tax rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ta ... in_history

For 50 years the top rate was 70-90% and those are the years that Trump says he wants to get back to, as in MAGA. Back when a man could support a wife and 2.5 kids without her having to work also.. and the dr came to your house for $20 and the guy at the station pumped your gas. That was the fat middle class FDR created by redistributing the money through taxes. Now we bag our own groceries and we'd be lucky to see a cashier again and soon we may have to slaughter our own animals in order to save costs so the consumer can afford to keep buying and running up debt to supplement income.

If you earn more salary that means you’re freely being paid by an employer or customers commensurate with the overall value you are creating in the economy.

You're getting paid what you're willing to accept, not the value you contribute or there would be no incentive to hire you. How could you be paid what you're worth to the economy?

I was an employer. I got $30 per unit and hired a guy who could do one unit per hour. I paid him $10 and made $20 per hour off him. $10 was the going rate back then and was $5 above minimum, so I wasn't underpaying. But if I gave him what he is worth, then I'd have to give him the whole $30 that is my revenue. If I did that, they why bother employing him in the first place? So it's almost by definition that employment is a tax on the worker. I have to have my cut of his value, which is theft and is taking advantage of a situation that no one else will give him $10/hr and I'd be leveraging his hunger for profit. I justified it by claiming that he could always open a business and do it too, but if everyone were an employer, who'd be the employee? In order to have the rich, we must have the poor.

So it’s already “balanced out”: poor guy creates net value in the economy commensurate with a $20k salary, rich guy creates net value in the economy commensurate with a $200k salary. Once you divide out their salaries by the net value they are generating for the economy as a whole, it cancels out.

No because employees always create more value than they're compensated for or they wouldn't be employed (except in some cases where folks are overpaid). The purpose of employing someone is to extract some value from him as profit.

If you didn’t print more money, or if you only printed more money on par with however much money was destroyed or lost ever year, so that the money supply remains the same from year to year, there would still be growth in the economy because there is growth in value created,

If there is increased value, there has to be increased money to represent it. Or if you're saying prices fall, well that's a result of competition, since nobody in their right mind would lower prices if he had a monopoly. Competition is usually what drives prices down, not value given by employees. Or perhaps it's a result of falling demand and prices fall to attract buyers, but if that's the case, the economy is not growing and therefore not adding value. If demand is falling in general, then value is leaving since things are considered less valuable. Oversupply is not adding value either since the more of something there is, the less valuable it becomes. I can't imagine how else prices could fall.

and the result would be that the relative value of each unit of money would go up. To try and keep the value of each unit more or less the same over time you have to slowly inflate the money supply over time, to keep pace with all of the new value being created. Obviously our politicians are printing way more money than needed to achieve this balance, because the relative value of each unit of money is going down over time.

They're issuing more money to feed the expanding wealth gap. Those guys are making tons of money and that money has to be issued to them. It has to come from somewhere.

Money is just a symbolic representation of realvalue created. That’s all it is. Money is not value, it is a symbol of value

Value is extracted from the employees and that's why money reflects the value flowing uphill.

The employer does not “steal” money or profit from the worker,

That can't be true because the money somehow disappears from the workers,,, and is replaced by debt to supplement the lack of money.

rather the worker rents the employer’s capital and means of production

Rents? You mean eternally rents the equipment? Reminds me of my uncle who rented a phone from the phone company for untold decades. He could have bought 50,000 phones with the money he paid in rent. For a worker to be properly compensated, he would have to be share owner in the company, sharing all profits and expenses, not paying rent forever. Richard Wolff has some ideas about that since he's advocating for that system.

in order to be able to work to produce more net value than the worker could do on his own,

Yeah, that's why I say employment is a necessary evil. Everyone can't be a tradesman who works for himself. So allowing employers to profit from employees is the carrot in front of the horse that drives the economy, but the evil is righted through the income tax.

The salary has to be agreed upon by both parties, in a free (non-communist, non-socialist, non-authoritarian) economy. In a free economy the worker is free to leave employment if he doesn’t think his salary is good enough.

Only if you can find better pay, otherwise he is not free to do that.

In reality, Marx is deeply wrong about the nature of work as surplus-value:

I have no clue what marx said lol. My ideas are purely my own.

Marx said that the employer steals surplus-value from the worker and this is the source of profit,

Makes sense to me.

when in fact people want to give their surplus-value to a meaningful enterprise and the source of profit is three-fold: 1) free giving of surplus-value by human beings either in work or in their daily lives, 2) refinement of existing processes of production (increase in technology, etc), or 3) discovery of more resources able to be fed as inputs into existing processes of production thus creating more products, more values.

1) I'm not sure I see how employees are freely giving up value as in charity to their employers. 2) Automation is owned by the employer and puts the employee out of a job. 3) I'm not sure what you're saying with that one.

People want to give their energy and surplus-value. That is how we are. We freely give our surplus-value and work-effort, our “poeisis” as Parodites said, in many different ways. People want to work, they want to generate value in the world and they want to get paid for doing that because “getting paid” is symbolic of that value of made. If you want to get paid more money then you need to start making more value in the world.

I don't know anyone who wants to work. Hell, my friends sit and drink beer while I work on THEIR stuff! Rarely does anyone volunteer to help me do anything, and I do fun stuff! 8)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:27 pm

UrGod wrote:Leftists talk about how happy they are to pay more taxes, well you don’t need a tax law and system of tax collection to pay more in taxes, just mail a check to the IRS. They will happily cash it. Of course none of these leftists does that, because they’re all talk. It’s just psychological games for them.

No rich leftist who pretends to be so happy to pay more in taxes because the tax rates went up, is going to keep voluntarily giving that extra money to the government if the tax rate were to go down. It’s bullshit and lies, it’s fucking politics, people. Open your fucking eyes.

What's your theory to explain why Warren Buffett advocates for his taxes to be raised and your taxes to be lowered, but he also does not write a donation to the gov? What scheme is he up to?

Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:48 pm

Serendipper wrote:
UrGod wrote:Leftists talk about how happy they are to pay more taxes, well you don’t need a tax law and system of tax collection to pay more in taxes, just mail a check to the IRS. They will happily cash it. Of course none of these leftists does that, because they’re all talk. It’s just psychological games for them.

No rich leftist who pretends to be so happy to pay more in taxes because the tax rates went up, is going to keep voluntarily giving that extra money to the government if the tax rate were to go down. It’s bullshit and lies, it’s fucking politics, people. Open your fucking eyes.

What's your theory to explain why Warren Buffett advocates for his taxes to be raised and your taxes to be lowered, but he also does not write a donation to the gov? What scheme is he up to?



He is part of the same neoliberal corporate globalist system, he has everything to gain from pushing that system even if it means his tax rate goes up a little bit. The last thing he wants to do is see this system implode.

It is sanctimonious lying. Anyone can send more money to the government, nothing is stopping you. But the philosophical argument against people like Buffet is that they represent a system that believes in unlimited and unchecked massive growth in big government, which is strangulating the economy by decimating the lower and middle classes, and infusing radical leftism everywhere into society and economics. I posted a short list in another thread here about institutions controlled mostly or entirely by leftism, perhaps you saw that. People like Buffet want to expand this sort of leftist tyranny over all aspects of life, so when they get up and defend bigger and bigger government you have to know what they really mean. High taxes are just a way for this system to perpetuate itself.

The American colonies rebelled against high taxation and tyranny. That is what America was and still is. We do not want to live as serfs on the plantations of the super-rich. Buffet is a super-rich who wants us to stay in serfdom, he does not want economic opportunity for the greatest number, he does not want a reduction in big big government that takes control over more and more of every aspect of ours lives. Most people do not want to live as slaves. Buffet does not have to live as a slave, because of his wealth and position he can let this neoliberal globalist corporatocratic system of nanny state big big government continue indefinitely and it will never adversely impact him.

These billionaires are able to hire the legal teams and make the right political influences to secure their position in perpetuity, while any middle class person or small business owner cannot do that. How many jobs have been outsources, factories closed, towns decimated, how many people cannot even afford their own lives because they work 25% or 35% of the entire year just to pay the government? That is not rational.

High taxes only sustain massive statism. Since I am opposed to massive statism I am also opposed to high taxes, as the American founders were as well. This was the entire purpose behind the American Revolution, to throw off the oppression of wealthy bureaucrats who take huge chunks of your money, deny you freedoms, and force you to fall in line with whatever they decide is "best" for you. Fuck that.

But yeah, plenty of stupid people will swallow the propaganda that people like Buffet push. It is called virtue signaling. It is the antithesis of reasoning.

Ok I will respond to your other points now.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:30 pm

UrGod wrote:Anything can be used as currency, I wasn’t talking about fiat currency, I was talking about taxation. I don’t want to go back to gold coins or barter days, that would be idiotic.

Taxation had nothing to do with whatever currency system you have. Currency is just a medium of exchange of value, a common denominator that allows direct trade of values made. Again, taxation has nothing to do with any of that. You can have a currency exchange system like that where someone else comes in between you and the other party with whom you’re trading, and take a cut of the currency that is exchanged between you, or that cannot happen. If I buy something from a dude in his garage sale and give him cash, no one is coming in between that transaction to tax it. There is literally no reason why all transactions could not be like that, except that we need a way to generate funds for social services and government functions. I’m open to ideas other than taxation, because as I already said, when someone else comes in between me and the other person with whom I’m freely transacting, pulls out a gun and demands I give them a percentage of the transaction, that is theft. And that is exactly what taxation is. The gun might be deferred, but if you don’t pay taxes you either literally cannot buy/sell in the market or down the road you will get arrested for tax evasion.

Taxation is regressive, this means that taxes negatively impact poorer people more than richer people. Take a 10% tax rate on someone making $20k a year versus someone making $200k a year; the $2000 you take from the poorer person has a lot more immediate, important and desperate value to him than does the $20,000 you take from the richer person, because at the end of the day the poorer person has $18,000 and the richer person has $180,000. Same tax rate. I’m sure that rich guy could have found great use for that extra $20,000, but the poor guy really needed it because on $18,000 you can barely survive.

This is why we have progressive tax rates. But even these are still regressive, and to the point the progressive tax rates become steep enough to arguably stop being regressive they also approach the point of absurdity; for example, poor guy from above gets a 5% tax rate while the rich guy gets 50% tax rate, so the poor guy has to pay $1000 out of his income and ends up with $19,000, rich guy has to pay $100,000 and ends up with $100,000. You can see how this is still regressive in nature, the poor guy could do a lot with an extra grand in his pocket, out of sheer immediate need, while the rich guy obviously would want that extra $100k but after paying his taxes he still had $100k left over.

Increase even further: poor guy pays no tax, rich guy pays 75% like under some kind of Bernie Sanders plan. Now poor guy is happier getting all his money he really does need, while rich guy has to pay $150k in taxes and has $50k left over. Maybe this seems more balanced to some people, but it’s absurd, because you have a guy creating value in the economy on par with a $200k salary who only actually makes 1/4 of that, and he is totally funding someone else to pay no taxes at all. It becomes irrational at the point you have a small number of people at the top basically funding the entire government.

Also it’s basically irrational to have different tax rates for different people. If you earn more salary that means you’re freely being paid by an employer or customers commensurate with the overall value you are creating in the economy. So it’s already “balanced out”: poor guy creates net value in the economy commensurate with a $20k salary, rich guy creates net value in the economy commensurate with a $200k salary. Once you divide out their salaries by the net value they are generating for the economy as a whole, it cancels out. So the idea of progressive tax rates is irrational at face value, because you’re actually taking more real value out of the upper tiers of the economy where more net value is being generated into and as the economy as a whole. There is no reason why someone making $200k “needs to pay more” as a percentage of income to taxes than someone making $20k, because both of those people are working to create value in the economy at exactly commensurate ratios, assuming a broadly free market system where employment and economic transactions are freely engaged in or not.

On the issue you raise of money supply, the money supply does naturally expand over time, even if you have gold coins. People find more gold, and exchange gold with other countries and economies. The total supply of gold is always going to be larger than the value-producing nexuses centered within economic spheres, so there is a flow of gold to these nexuses and which naturally distributes around each nexus in rings emanating from the center. That’s just how it works. But the question is moot anyway since we don’t use gold coins, we can just print more money as needed to reflect the increase of value which the economy is producing; this is about increase of value, not physical money supply. If you didn’t print more money, or if you only printed more money on par with however much money was destroyed or lost ever year, so that the money supply remains the same from year to year, there would still be growth in the economy because there is growth in value created, and the result would be that the relative value of each unit of money would go up. To try and keep the value of each unit more or less the same over time you have to slowly inflate the money supply over time, to keep pace with all of the new value being created. Obviously our politicians are printing way more money than needed to achieve this balance, because the relative value of each unit of money is going down over time.

Money is just a symbolic representation of realvalue created. That’s all it is. Money is not value, it is a symbol of value and a common means of transacting and trading values.

And you are fundamentally mistaken about the nature of work. The employer does not “steal” money or profit from the worker, rather the worker rents the employer’s capital and means of production in order to be able to work to produce more net value than the worker could do on his own, and the employer pays the worker a salary for that. The salary has to be agreed upon by both parties, in a free (non-communist, non-socialist, non-authoritarian) economy. In a free economy the worker is free to leave employment if he doesn’t think his salary is good enough. In reality, Marx is deeply wrong about the nature of work as surplus-value: Marx said that the employer steals surplus-value from the worker and this is the source of profit, when in fact people want to give their surplus-value to a meaningful enterprise and the source of profit is three-fold: 1) free giving of surplus-value by human beings either in work or in their daily lives, 2) refinement of existing processes of production (increase in technology, etc), or 3) discovery of more resources able to be fed as inputs into existing processes of production thus creating more products, more values.

People want to give their energy and surplus-value. That is how we are. We freely give our surplus-value and work-effort, our “poeisis” as Parodites said, in many different ways. People want to work, they want to generate value in the world and they want to get paid for doing that because “getting paid” is symbolic of that value of made. If you want to get paid more money then you need to start making more value in the world.



The wealthiest should pay more in taxes as they make more money where the poor should pay less in taxes as they don't make that much at all by comparison.

The wealthy should lead by example in paying taxes by showing that they actually care about the domestic problems or duties of the nation that they live in. They should lead by example as being the most successful when it concerns charity, moral support, and helping out their own countrymen.

All employers should give their employees a living wage and long term benefits if they can afford to. Any individual that cannot be given a livable wage is practically a labor slave. Of course all of this isn't just the fault of employers either but instead is the fault of centralized banks that don't have a fiscal sound money supply. The United States dollar for instance has lost 85% of its original value over the years.
Last edited by Zero_Sum on Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:38 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Increase even further: poor guy pays no tax, rich guy pays 75% like under some kind of Bernie Sanders plan. Now poor guy is happier getting all his money he really does need, while rich guy has to pay $150k in taxes and has $50k left over. Maybe this seems more balanced to some people, but it’s absurd, because you have a guy creating value in the economy on par with a $200k salary who only actually makes 1/4 of that, and he is totally funding someone else to pay no taxes at all. It becomes irrational at the point you have a small number of people at the top basically funding the entire government.

I see what you're saying, but we have ceos making 400x what their own average employee makes. They could pay 90% and still live like kings.


The numbers you mention are irrelevant, as is the phrase "live like kings". That is purely arbitrary. If a CEO is working in his position to sustain a large company and his decisions and knowledge are instrumental to the success of all that capital, all of those jobs and earning and profits, then he will be compensated commensurate to that. The market decides what commensurate compensation means. A CEO is also free to leave and find other jobs, and boards of directors are free to decide how much to pay a CEO, or fire a CEO and get another one.

That is the entire point of a free market: people make decisions based on individual values calculations. There is absolutely no rational, real basis for the kind of moralistic outrage of saying something like "well a CEO makes 400x what a lowly employee makes and that is wrong!" Nonsense. Compare the efforts, education, knowledge, responsibility and work hours of the CEO to that of the guy working in the mail room. Compare the amount of capital generated directly by the CEO's individual work to that generated directly by the mail guy's work. If anything, the CEO's actual contribution in simple dollar amounts in profits and capital growth of the company is going to be far more than 400x that of the mail guy's.

I am so sick of all this leftist moralizing. It is bizarre to me that the left has degenerated into a bunch of moralists whining about fairness with their arbitrary standards and only looking at one side of the equation. What nonsense.

What is it they say??? 90% of the taxes are paid by 20% of the people? By your own fairness reasoning, why not make them pay the other 10% of the taxes because they wouldn't notice while the bottom 80% of people would certainly notice if they paid no taxes.

Check out the table of historical tax rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ta ... in_history

For 50 years the top rate was 70-90% and those are the years that Trump says he wants to get back to, as in MAGA. Back when a man could support a wife and 2.5 kids without her having to work also.. and the dr came to your house for $20 and the guy at the station pumped your gas. That was the fat middle class FDR created by redistributing the money through taxes. Now we bag our own groceries and we'd be lucky to see a cashier again and soon we may have to slaughter our own animals in order to save costs so the consumer can afford to keep buying and running up debt to supplement income.


There were a lot of reasons for the large middle class in the 50s-70s, it wasn't all about "redistribution". Redistribution is not even the rationale of taxation, as you claimed; the rationale of taxation is nothing more than the fact we need to find a way to generate funds for government and whatever services and social programs it is doing. You do not need redistribution or welfare or socialism to accomplish any of that. Taxation alone can directly fund public projects like defense, education, law-making, police and courts, roadway construction and maintenance, water treatment, environmental protection, consumer protection and safety oversight, etc.etc. Nowhere in any of that do you need to "redistribute" money from the masses via taxation into the pockets of other people.

If you want to know why the middle class was decimated, look at neoliberal globalist policies supported by people like Buffet, whom you seem to like or at least agree with. Economics is bottom-up, it starts at the bottom and builds, like a natural ecosystem. The higher more derivative layers cannot survive without the bottom layers. And the more you bloat the top layers at the expense of the bottom, the more irrational and unstable the system becomes. Taxing "rich people" and redistributing that back to "poor people" is not going to produce bottom-up economic growth, if anything it creates dependency, apathy, victimhood, resentment and class warfare, and massive statism that always trends toward becoming tyrannical. No reasonable sane person wants any of that.

What you need to do is cut government spending while you also cut taxes. Obviously no one is willing to do that, not even Trump. Reagan cut taxes drastically and then refused to reduce government spending, which kicked off the cycle of massive deficits to cover domestic spending that has continued to this day and increased the total federal debt to be on par with the entire GDP, not a good situation. You first need to address government spending, which has steadily increased ever since the 50s if not prior to that too. And you might note that increases in spending on welfare and government social programs generally has not achieved any reduction in poverty rates. You might ask yourself why this is.

If you earn more salary that means you’re freely being paid by an employer or customers commensurate with the overall value you are creating in the economy.

You're getting paid what you're willing to accept, not the value you contribute or there would be no incentive to hire you. How could you be paid what you're worth to the economy?

I was an employer. I got $30 per unit and hired a guy who could do one unit per hour. I paid him $10 and made $20 per hour off him. $10 was the going rate back then and was $5 above minimum, so I wasn't underpaying. But if I gave him what he is worth, then I'd have to give him the whole $30 that is my revenue. If I did that, they why bother employing him in the first place? So it's almost by definition that employment is a tax on the worker. I have to have my cut of his value, which is theft and is taking advantage of a situation that no one else will give him $10/hr and I'd be leveraging his hunger for profit. I justified it by claiming that he could always open a business and do it too, but if everyone were an employer, who'd be the employee? In order to have the rich, we must have the poor.


You get paid what you are willing to accept, and the employer pays you what he/she is willing to accept paying you for the work you agree to do. That is how it works. There is no other way for it to work. And as an employer you should be aware of how much more work you do than the employees; you are responsible for the maintenance of the business, you work twice as much as the other employees and ultimately it is your capital the employee is renting to use. You generate $30 an hour from a worker and agree to pay that worker $10 an hour, which the worker also agrees to; so what? That other $20 is mostly covering your own costs as a business-owner and is mostly being reinvested back into the business, with whatever is left over as profit being spent in the economy anyway on supplies and services you need for your business to continue. Again, there is no magic number of distribution of profits between worker and employer, any attempt to say what is "fair" is always going to be arbitrary. And think about it from there worker's perspective: the worker at your company agreed to work for $10 an hour, which means this job was better than other jobs open to that worker. The worker was making $80 a day from a full time schedule, he got to go to your business, use your equipment and processes and systems, and go home at the end of that work day with $80 in his pockets. He is not able to act on his own, without access to your capital, and generate $80 a day for himself, and if he were able to do that then he would already be doing it. So the worker is profiting quite a bit from being your employee, just as you are profiting quite a bit from his being your employee. That is how it works. Mutual gain of profits based on individual free values calculations based on self-interest.

If you start abusing your worker or paying him far less then he will quit and find another job. If there are no other jobs he thinks he can get, he will have to go get some additional education or skills or knowledge in order to make himself worth more to a potential employer. And if you abuse your workers and do not pay them well enough you will lose workers, which costs you a lot in the long run not just on hiring and firing processes but also loss of institutional knowledge and experience of your workers at your particular business.

Businesses compete for good workers, and that competition is what drives up wages far more than minimum wage. Even so-called low-skill workers are a resource that businesses compete for, and this competition drives up the wages paid to low-skill workers, as economists like Thomas Sowell have pointed out many times.

So it’s already “balanced out”: poor guy creates net value in the economy commensurate with a $20k salary, rich guy creates net value in the economy commensurate with a $200k salary. Once you divide out their salaries by the net value they are generating for the economy as a whole, it cancels out.

No because employees always create more value than they're compensated for or they wouldn't be employed (except in some cases where folks are overpaid). The purpose of employing someone is to extract some value from him as profit.


The employee creates more value than he is paid for, and the employer creates more value than the worker contributes. Values increase across the entire interaction. The business gets the extra surplus-labor of the worker and the worker get the extra surplus-capital and productive process of the employer; neither the worker nor the employer has access to that extra 'surplus' on his own.

You are still adhering to the Marxist mistake. "The purpose of employing someone is to extract some value from him as profit", no, the profit comes from the interaction between worker and employer, it is mutual. The extra profits generated are shared with the worker in the form of wages and with the employer in the form of profits. Again, there is no magical "fairness" number here. The employer decides what he wants to pay, and then he has to go find workers willing to work at that pay rate. The employee decides what he is willing to work for in terms of pay and work and job conditions. The worker has no right over the capital or decision making of the employer whose company the worker is renting access to.

Value is not "extracted", it is freely given by both the worker and the employer. Again, the worker cannot go out on his own and make more value (money, in this case) for himself than he can working at your company, because if he could then he would be doing that already. He has already determined, on his own, rightly or wrongly, that this one job is better for him than the alternatives he thinks are available to him. Imagine how much extra value your company gives to a worker; that worker does not own a company, capital stock, know-how of how to run a business, legal expertise in human resources and insurance and health benefits and marketing and logistics and all the rest. And the worker does not need to know any of those things. The worker is allowed to be basically ignorant of all of that, yet still produce profit for himself by working at your business. It is win-win.

Yeah someone might not really want to work at Burger King, but they are free to quit and not have a job at all. Obviously that is far worse than working at Burger King, if that is their only option (which in a large economy like ours is never actually the case, there are always many options). And again, the worker has to bring his particular skills, knowledge, efforts, etc. to any job he has. If that worker does not happen to have very many skills, knowledge or effort then on what basis should that worker be paid some arbitrarily high amount by you, the employer?

Any reasonable employer knows that his workers are his most valuable asset. And any reasonable worker knows that he has to work hard to acquire knowledge, skills, etc. in order to move up to better jobs and better wages. This is just how it works. I am sorry you think it is somehow "unfair", or whatever.

If you didn’t print more money, or if you only printed more money on par with however much money was destroyed or lost ever year, so that the money supply remains the same from year to year, there would still be growth in the economy because there is growth in value created,

If there is increased value, there has to be increased money to represent it.


No. The relative value of a single unit of currency is not fixed, it changes. A dollar is not worth "one dollar" as if that were someone an objective measurement, a dollar is worth whatever you can buy with one dollar. If overall value is increased while the monetary supply remains the same, or if the overall rate of value increase is more than the comparable rate of increase in monetary supply, then the relative value of a single dollar goes up. I already explained this.

Or if you're saying prices fall, well that's a result of competition, since nobody in their right mind would lower prices if he had a monopoly. Competition is usually what drives prices down, not value given by employees. Or perhaps it's a result of falling demand and prices fall to attract buyers, but if that's the case, the economy is not growing and therefore not adding value. If demand is falling in general, then value is leaving since things are considered less valuable. Oversupply is not adding value either since the more of something there is, the less valuable it becomes. I can't imagine how else prices could fall.


A large degree of profits comes from the relative value differences between the same product as valued by different people, particular between consumer and the company selling or making the product. Companies always buy in bulk at discount, because having a surplus of a given product is what allows for the relative cost of that product to be lower, and when this is lower it means the company can charge consumers more to buy just one of those products as opposed to a whole pallet of them. Surplus supply of food was one of the major factors that caused markets to form originally, and it still works like this. If you refine your process so that you can streaming production of a product and it costs you X per unit, and you now have 1000 of those units, you are able to charge people 2X to buy just one of those units, because the consumers who buy just one unit do not have that same process of production that you do. For the same reason, businesses store up a stockpile of products because it reduces the cost per unit that the business has to pay for those products. Whereas consumers just buy one or two of those products at a time, meaning they are able to pay a higher rate per unit and this is still a value-gain for that consumer.

Oversupply adds value so long as stockpiles are not immediately dumped into the market. This is why it is so essential to have surpluses, but surplus of inventory not necessarily of products on the open market for sale.

and the result would be that the relative value of each unit of money would go up. To try and keep the value of each unit more or less the same over time you have to slowly inflate the money supply over time, to keep pace with all of the new value being created. Obviously our politicians are printing way more money than needed to achieve this balance, because the relative value of each unit of money is going down over time.

They're issuing more money to feed the expanding wealth gap. Those guys are making tons of money and that money has to be issued to them. It has to come from somewhere.


Money is just paper, or digital bits in a computer. It means nothing on its own. What matters is the relative value you gain from having some of that paper or bits. And, again as I said, this relative value is changing all the time. Real value increase, real creation of goods and services, is the source of economic growth. The money supply is just a secondary representation of that, as a means of allowing for smoother transactions than barter would allow for, and also as a means of symbolizing that value which has been created.

Money is just a symbolic representation of realvalue created. That’s all it is. Money is not value, it is a symbol of value

Value is extracted from the employees and that's why money reflects the value flowing uphill.


No. I have already explained why this view you hold is wrong.

The employer does not “steal” money or profit from the worker,

That can't be true because the money somehow disappears from the workers,,, and is replaced by debt to supplement the lack of money.


No, profits increase as a consequence of the interaction between worker and employer, as I have explained. Then those profits are shared with the worker and the employer. Also with the consumer.

rather the worker rents the employer’s capital and means of production

Rents? You mean eternally rents the equipment? Reminds me of my uncle who rented a phone from the phone company for untold decades. He could have bought 50,000 phones with the money he paid in rent.


Your uncle sounds like an idiot, then.

For a worker to be properly compensated, he would have to be share owner in the company, sharing all profits and expenses, not paying rent forever. Richard Wolff has some ideas about that since he's advocating for that system.


What on earth make you say that? This is classic Marxism which does not work. For what bizarre reason would a worker somehow need to also be an owner? You as the business owner have created a business, you have your own brick and mortar, capital, surplus inventories, business systems, etc. etc. and that is yours. You own it. By what weird right would someone have to come in and demand that just because they agree to work for you, that they now get to also own what is yours? There is absolutely no justification for such an idea.

You seem to be forgetting that the worker is gaining tremendously from having access to your business. Without that access, without being your worker, that person would have no wages at all and no opportunities for giving his surplus-value to a meaningful enterprise that produces profits not just for the business but also for himself.

in order to be able to work to produce more net value than the worker could do on his own,

Yeah, that's why I say employment is a necessary evil. Everyone can't be a tradesman who works for himself. So allowing employers to profit from employees is the carrot in front of the horse that drives the economy, but the evil is righted through the income tax.


Not everyone can be everything, exactly right. This is reality. We each have something to offer, a unique personal surplus-value that we need to find a way to make use of. Having a multitude of different kinds of jobs is one way of doing that. It is not "evil" in any sense at all, except maybe to a crypto-religious Marxist moralist. But reality does not work that way.

The salary has to be agreed upon by both parties, in a free (non-communist, non-socialist, non-authoritarian) economy. In a free economy the worker is free to leave employment if he doesn’t think his salary is good enough.

Only if you can find better pay, otherwise he is not free to do that.


Exactly. You are as free as you are. If you have literally no job prospects better than flipping a burger or digging a ditch, then that is on you. And if that is actually the case for you, then you obviously have very little value already and you should be working on increasing your value somehow. Get more skills, get a different education, work harder, etc.

It is called personal responsibility. If a worker is really so shitty in what he can offer in the marketplace of jobs that he is forced to work for minimum wage at Walmart or whatever, that is a real reflection of the actual value that worker has in terms of jobs and employment.

In reality, Marx is deeply wrong about the nature of work as surplus-value:

I have no clue what marx said lol. My ideas are purely my own.


Actually they aren't. You are espousing basic Marxist ideas, whether or not you know it.

Marx said that the employer steals surplus-value from the worker and this is the source of profit,

Makes sense to me.


Right, because you are operating on Marxist 'thinking'. I've already shown how that is incorrect.

when in fact people want to give their surplus-value to a meaningful enterprise and the source of profit is three-fold: 1) free giving of surplus-value by human beings either in work or in their daily lives, 2) refinement of existing processes of production (increase in technology, etc), or 3) discovery of more resources able to be fed as inputs into existing processes of production thus creating more products, more values.

1) I'm not sure I see how employees are freely giving up value as in charity to their employers.


It isn't charity, I never said it was. Every person wants to give and make use of what they have as their potential, that is what it means to... have potential.

2) Automation is owned by the employer and puts the employee out of a job.


Automation increase the efficiency of a certain productive process, which causes there to be less need for human labor and some people lose jobs; as a consequence of this, the labor pool increases, driving down the cost of labor; as a consequence of this, more surplus labor is available to the economy to be put to use somewhere else, in different and new productive processes.

By your logic, we should all still be using typewriters and horse and buggies. Nonsense.

3) I'm not sure what you're saying with that one.


You are not sure how the extraction of resources leads to the creation of value? I am not sure why you would not understand this. If ore, oil, gold, water, wood, food, whatever else sort of natural resources are not extracted then where does everything come from? We literally take these sort of resources from the earth and feed them as inputs into economic processes of production, which creates the products we have. When you extract more resources, you increase the inputs which leads to more products, i.e. to more created values.

How is that hard to understand?

People want to give their energy and surplus-value. That is how we are. We freely give our surplus-value and work-effort, our “poeisis” as Parodites said, in many different ways. People want to work, they want to generate value in the world and they want to get paid for doing that because “getting paid” is symbolic of that value of made. If you want to get paid more money then you need to start making more value in the world.

I don't know anyone who wants to work. Hell, my friends sit and drink beer while I work on THEIR stuff! Rarely does anyone volunteer to help me do anything, and I do fun stuff! 8)


Only a very lazy person, someone with very little potential value to himself or anyone else, would sit around doing nothing. But yeah that is their free choice to make. If they have nothing to offer, then it makes sense that they are... offering nothing.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:43 pm

UrGod wrote:I already noted that taxation is the only way we have found so far to fund social services and government.

Apparently you don't know how to read.



One thing I know about capitalists, libertarians, and the conservatives that fall into either camp is that they sure hate poor people or the lower working classes of people.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:46 pm

UrGod wrote:Leftists talk about how happy they are to pay more taxes, well you don’t need a tax law and system of tax collection to pay more in taxes, just mail a check to the IRS. They will happily cash it. Of course none of these leftists does that, because they’re all talk. It’s just psychological games for them.

No rich leftist who pretends to be so happy to pay more in taxes because the tax rates went up, is going to keep voluntarily giving that extra money to the government if the tax rate were to go down. It’s bullshit and lies, it’s fucking politics, people. Open your fucking eyes.

You're probably right about there being levels of hypocrisy on the left side.

To get around that hypocrisy you just make taxes mandatory like a lot of Scandinavian nations.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:55 pm

UrGod wrote:

High taxes only sustain massive statism. Since I am opposed to massive statism I am also opposed to high taxes, as the American founders were as well. This was the entire purpose behind the American Revolution, to throw off the oppression of wealthy bureaucrats who take huge chunks of your money, deny you freedoms, and force you to fall in line with whatever they decide is "best" for you. Fuck that.


There in lies the rub as you must protect the illusion of democracy and parliamentary republicanism at all costs. :lol: [Even if it means ignoring huge swathes of your own citizens that you leave in massive amounts of poverty.]

Of course when founders said all of that too bad they weren't familiar with the history of monarchy to understand that during that period monarchy was full of corruption that it was trying to get control of within the 1700's. I think if monarchy was allowed to flourish a little longer it would probably of got control of the corruption that was experienced then, a bad king becomes replaced with a good king and so on.

At any rate modern democracies or republics in the west typically have the largest bureaucracies.
Last edited by Zero_Sum on Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:10 pm

There are many reasons why the United States economy of yesterday from the 50's to the 70's no longer exists.

1. We got rid of banking regulations that essentially protected the government from being influenced or bought off by banks.

2. We got rid of stock market regulations that essentially didn't allow corporations to buy their own stocks or conduct insider trading.

3. We got rid of laws and regulations that essentially said that corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence government or its politicians. [Now corporate lobbyists practically control everything.]

When all three of those laws were repealed the next thing that came about was the erosion of employee trade unions. After those were eroded or decimated companies were positioning themselves to ship all of their work production overseas which they promptly did because it was cheaper for them to do so and because they thought to themselves that the average American doesn't deserve a livable higher standard of living. Now that 85% of factory jobs, manufacturing, and production has been shipped overseas we're now debating how to cut wages even further for the lowest wage earners. There is also the demand for limitless immigration to further offset the lowest wage workers of the United States by hordes of foreigners. :lol: Winning! USA! USA! USA! :lol:

[What did you people expect when you get rid of all levels of laws or regulations?]


See what happens when you destroy the centralized power structure of the government or state giving it to the people? [Please remember that corporations are people too. :lol: ]


Also remember this, capitalism is against any form of economic protectionism which means it is the death kneel of any form of nationalism. Capitalism and nationalism cannot coexist, it's either one or the other.

The shipping of all jobs overseas, destruction of job/trade unions, unlimited immigration, and the erosion of laws protecting both the government or general public away from predatory business practices has all been done in the name of capitalism. Capitalists own all of that with their trickle down economics.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:40 pm

You fail to distinguish between laissez fair free market capitalism (anti-statism) and neoliberal global “capitalism” (statism as corporatocratic fascism). Everything you mention has to do with the latter, not the former.

Real capitalism has plenty of oversight laws against monopoly, fraud and corruption. Same reason why we have laws and police and court systems against theft and violation of property rights.

I’m tired of your trolling. Get a brain, or keep cashing those Soros paychecks, I don’t care either way, but do it somewhere else.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:54 pm

UrGod wrote:You fail to distinguish between laissez fair free market capitalism (anti-statism) and neoliberal global “capitalism” (statism as corporatocratic fascism). Everything you mention has to do with the latter, not the former.

Real capitalism has plenty of oversight laws against monopoly, fraud and corruption. Same reason why we have laws and police and court systems against theft and violation of property rights.

I’m tired of your trolling. Get a brain, or keep cashing those Soros paychecks, I don’t care either way, but do it somewhere else.


No, you fail to realize that there has never been any purist state of capitalism where it has always been corrupt and a form of cronyism since its very beginnings. You're just another dim witted American subsumed by Mises Institute of propaganda.

Soros checks? You do realize who you're talking to right? :lol:



Actually Soros types only have any real kind of power because of the international and globalist system of capitalism people like you promote. If that is your only argument you've already lost the debate.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:36 am

Damn that some excellent posting, God.
It appears that the guy you're talking to is not the sharpest tool in the shed. All the more praiseworthy what you've put down here.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7778
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:50 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Damn that some excellent posting, God.
It appears that the guy you're talking to is not the sharpest tool in the shed. All the more praiseworthy what you've put down here.

Oh look, another expert on capitalism. Any prevailing arguments against counter points above? No, I didn't think so either. :lol:
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:22 am

Zero sum of... anything even remotely resembling an intellect.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:30 am

UrGod wrote:Zero sum of... anything even remotely resembling an intellect.


Still waiting for substantial arguments to be made, I'm sure it will happen any moment now......

Still waiting.....
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:38 am

Nice straw man. I already refuted your nonsense about how all capitalism is the same. You don’t even know what capitalism is or means, including that there are different varieties of it. Would be interesting if you actually tried addressing anything I said, though. But I won’t hold my breath.

And since you’re just trolling anyway, my engagement with you is quite limited. I don’t mind a good troll, it keeps things interesting. Occasionally I’ll spar with you when I’m bored, but otherwise I have actual shit to do.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:45 am

UrGod wrote:Nice straw man. I already refuted your nonsense about how all capitalism is the same. You don’t even know what capitalism is or means, including that there are different varieties of it. Would be interesting if you actually tried addressing anything I said, though. But I won’t hold my breath.

And since you’re just trolling anyway, my engagement with you is quite limited. I don’t mind a good troll, it keeps things interesting. Occasionally I’ll spar with you when I’m bored, but otherwise I have actual shit to do.

You didn't refute anything as all you did was make a blanket statement, I on the other hand denied the validity of your claim where I was kinda hoping you in turn would try to reinforce your claim so that I could have the joy of ripping it to shreds. Are you really going to refuse me that opportunity and joy? Damn kill joy...Oh sure, I enjoy trolling and sarcasm like anybody else but I do have my moments of seriousness.

You have shit to do? Well, don't let me hold you up then. :lol:
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Serendipper » Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:57 pm

UrGod wrote:The numbers you mention are irrelevant, as is the phrase "live like kings". That is purely arbitrary. If a CEO is working in his position to sustain a large company and his decisions and knowledge are instrumental to the success of all that capital, all of those jobs and earning and profits, then he will be compensated commensurate to that. The market decides what commensurate compensation means. A CEO is also free to leave and find other jobs, and boards of directors are free to decide how much to pay a CEO, or fire a CEO and get another one.

There is no market determining compensation because I could find someone to steal clients' money for far less than Stumpf was paid. Name one thing than one human can do that is 400x better than another human? Nevermind the average human, which is what is required to justify 400x more pay than the average employee.

Let's say someone has an IQ of 1, does it make sense that someone could have an IQ of 400? The weakest person could probably bench press 20lbs, but can someone bench 8000lbs?

There is no basis or justification to explain someone, anyone, making 400x more than anyone else and I'm certain there are people who could do the same job for 10x.

But all that is beside the point, which wasn't bitching about how much they get paid, but claiming they can afford a 70-90% tax rate that had existed for the 50 years that Trump says he wants to return to... when america was great.

That is the entire point of a free market: people make decisions based on individual values calculations.

That's why Remington is going under... because they decided to pad their own portfolios rather than run the company and now an heirloom gun manufacturer may be going extinct. They borrowed money on company credit then used the money to buy back stock which inflated their stock options. There, ladies and gentleman, is the "talent" on display that justifies 400x more pay.

Compare the efforts, education, knowledge, responsibility and work hours of the CEO to that of the guy working in the mail room.

Not 400x more. Maybe twice, but more realistically the ceo works 1.5x harder (12/8hrs) and maybe is 1.3x smarter on average (iq 150/110).

Compare the amount of capital generated directly by the CEO's individual work to that generated directly by the mail guy's work.

Not 400x more. The mail guy is just as necessary because the ceo couldn't make 1 penny without the mail guy doing his job.

If anything, the CEO's actual contribution in simple dollar amounts in profits and capital growth of the company is going to be far more than 400x that of the mail guy's.

Borrowing on company credit in order to buy back stock in order to inflate options prices is not the generation of profit for the company, but the theft of company value. Working a position that someone else would and could do for 10x does not justify 400x in compensation and is therefore theft of company value.

I am so sick of all this leftist moralizing.

It's not morality, it's good business to pay ceos less. Hell, my local walmart manager is overpaid for what he does. I could find someone for half the money to hide the horseradish just as well. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

There were a lot of reasons for the large middle class in the 50s-70s, it wasn't all about "redistribution".

Name some. Not war because that sends the middle class off to die and there were lots of wars going on back then.

Redistribution is not even the rationale of taxation, as you claimed;

Yes it is. Taxes come from the rich and into government, government spends the money into the economy either through employment or contracting or else sends checks to people.

If I could take $1 million from Jaime Dimon and for some reason I could only give it to you, I'd be tempted to do it because it would benefit me more if you had the money. You'd spend it all immediately and you'd buy things I like to buy and that would make the prices of things I like to become cheaper. The more money is spread around, the more it helps ME, even if I get none of it.

the rationale of taxation is nothing more than the fact we need to find a way to generate funds for government

Nah, we can print it. The sole purpose of taxation is the engineering of an economy.

Listen from the horse's mouth. Start at 18:00 here: Like, 2 min of your time.



Taxation alone can directly fund public projects like defense, education, law-making, police and courts, roadway construction and maintenance, water treatment, environmental protection, consumer protection and safety oversight, etc.etc. Nowhere in any of that do you need to "redistribute" money from the masses via taxation into the pockets of other people.

Well if you take from the rich in taxes to pay for police and military, you've just given it to the poor. See?

If you want to know why the middle class was decimated, look at neoliberal globalist policies supported by people like Buffet, whom you seem to like or at least agree with.

I like Buffett. He and his 2 sisters all have 150 iqs, so he's genetically from good stock. He had good parenting and credits his father for many things. Buffett is a bit of a national treasure like Einstein et al. I also like him because he's lived in the same house he bought in the 50s and doesn't live extravagantly. He seems very wise to me. But that's the problem... he's so smart that people think he's stupid because a bird that flies high looks small.

I'll grant you that about globalist policies for the most part.

Economics is bottom-up, it starts at the bottom and builds, like a natural ecosystem.

Right.

The higher more derivative layers cannot survive without the bottom layers. And the more you bloat the top layers at the expense of the bottom, the more irrational and unstable the system becomes.

Exactly!

Taxing "rich people" and redistributing that back to "poor people" is not going to produce bottom-up economic growth,

I disagree. Yes it will produce growth.

if anything it creates dependency,

I concede that and add that it creates a sense of entitlement.

apathy, victimhood, resentment and class warfare, and massive statism that always trends toward becoming tyrannical. No reasonable sane person wants any of that.

I'm not sure about all those.

What you need to do is cut government spending while you also cut taxes.

Because of efficiency and automation, we need the gov to create meaningless jobs just to keep people "working" to justify being paid. Soon we will have people digging holes and others filling them back in because we cannot just hand people money to live on. It's psychological.

Cutting taxes reduces tax revenue (Laffer curve doesn't work) and making gov smaller reduces employment, so the outcome can only be detrimental to the economy.

Obviously no one is willing to do that, not even Trump. Reagan cut taxes drastically and then refused to reduce government spending, which kicked off the cycle of massive deficits to cover domestic spending that has continued to this day and increased the total federal debt to be on par with the entire GDP, not a good situation.

Reagan... I can't believe people bought that trickle-down nonsense. Deluge up and trickled down.

You first need to address government spending, which has steadily increased ever since the 50s if not prior to that too.

The reason for that is automation taking jobs as well as the need for more regulations, like making it so dogfood does not have euthanasia drug because they grind up pets to make dogfood. That's what you get with capitalists; if there's no law against it, they're gonna do it. Granted, some regulations are stupid.

And you might note that increases in spending on welfare and government social programs generally has not achieved any reduction in poverty rates. You might ask yourself why this is.

Because it's not about welfare spending, but the taxation on the rich, which correlates perfectly with the wealth divide.

It doesn't matter what the gov does with the money from the rich, so long as they take it and do something with it. Regardless what they do (military, welfare, stupid shit), it will support the middle class and poor. There is no way to avoid it. And the same money will flow back up again just to be retaken by the gov and recycled through the economy.

Lots of folks think when the gov takes money, the money disappears from the economy, but that's not true at all. Many contractors are happy to get gov contracts... they're the best to have! Guaranteed you'll get paid and overpaid.

You get paid what you are willing to accept, and the employer pays you what he/she is willing to accept paying you for the work you agree to do.

Yes that's true, but it does not mean the employee is getting what the economy would say he is worth, if the economy could talk. The employee is only worth anything to me if he can make me money on top of what I'm already making.

One union-type guy threatened he would go on strike if i didn't pay him more. I told him to knock himself out because I'm not doing community service by employing you. I'm not going to take a paycut because I decided to hire you. So in order to work for me, you have to make me more money than I'm making without you. And that's how wealth is transferred uphill through employment.

And as an employer you should be aware of how much more work you do than the employees;

Yeah, I could do 3 units to their one. And probably made about that much more money too.

you are responsible for the maintenance of the business, you work twice as much as the other employees and ultimately it is your capital the employee is renting to use.

It wasn't much capital to get started. Just a truck and some tools. Paid cash and deducted from taxes. Hardly anything to offset the wage difference.

You generate $30 an hour from a worker and agree to pay that worker $10 an hour, which the worker also agrees to; so what?

So I don't know... it just shows how money goes uphill. The morality of it is subjective.

That other $20 is mostly covering your own costs as a business-owner

I didn't need $160 per day from each employee for gas to drive 20 miles.

and is mostly being reinvested back into the business,

Some of it, but mostly personal use.

with whatever is left over as profit being spent in the economy anyway on supplies and services you need for your business to continue.

Yup, it all got spent.

Again, there is no magic number of distribution of profits between worker and employer, any attempt to say what is "fair" is always going to be arbitrary.

I'm not arguing about fairness really, but only with regard to the theft argument. A moral argument against a moral claim. Otherwise, my argument is economical and what's fair has nothing to do with it.

And think about it from there worker's perspective: the worker at your company agreed to work for $10 an hour, which means this job was better than other jobs open to that worker.

That's how I was able to take advantage of them: I was the best thing going. I'm sure they would have been happier with $30/hr minus some tool renting and gas charges, but I needed to maximize profit.

The worker was making $80 a day from a full time schedule, he got to go to your business, use your equipment and processes and systems, and go home at the end of that work day with $80 in his pockets. He is not able to act on his own, without access to your capital, and generate $80 a day for himself, and if he were able to do that then he would already be doing it. So the worker is profiting quite a bit from being your employee, just as you are profiting quite a bit from his being your employee. That is how it works. Mutual gain of profits based on individual free values calculations based on self-interest.

No doubt we helped helped each other.

Businesses compete for good workers, and that competition is what drives up wages far more than minimum wage.

I have a friend working for a Berkshire company who told me they have 30 positions open continually that pay almost twice the minimum yet they can't seem to permanently fill them. I said simply, "Raise the wage until you fill them; problem solved." He said, "Uncle Warren wouldn't like that."

So the company would rather do without workers than to pay them more in order to attract them and they blame them for their unwillingness to work for meager peanuts as being part of a lazy and entitled generation.

Even so-called low-skill workers are a resource that businesses compete for,

The competition is the other way around.

The employee creates more value than he is paid for,

Right. That's my point.

and the employer creates more value than the worker contributes.

That value comes from the employee plus his own labor.

The business gets the extra surplus-labor of the worker and the worker get the extra surplus-capital and productive process of the employer; neither the worker nor the employer has access to that extra 'surplus' on his own.

That's a good point but I don't think it accounts for the real differences in pay. Even if it did, it wouldn't challenge the point that money flows uphill and something needs to be done before the bottom is broke.

You are still adhering to the Marxist mistake. "The purpose of employing someone is to extract some value from him as profit",

I haven't seen the evidence that it's a mistake.

no, the profit comes from the interaction between worker and employer, it is mutual.

I didn't need employees to make plenty of profit and many jobs I worked by myself; I needed employees to make me lots of profits.

Value is not "extracted", it is freely given by both the worker and the employer.

The $20/hr they gave me was not their charity, I assure you. Like I said, one guy threatened strike; not because he wasn't paid enough, but because I made so much more.

Yeah someone might not really want to work at Burger King, but they are free to quit and not have a job at all.

Work for peanuts or starve is not a free choice.

If that worker does not happen to have very many skills, knowledge or effort then on what basis should that worker be paid some arbitrarily high amount by you, the employer?

He should be fired and not paid at all because he isn't worth the minimum. That was Peter Schiff's point about the minimum wage hikes causing job loss because people aren't worth he wage and will be fired, but in 20-some times of raising the min wage, the number of employed people keeps rising.

Oversupply adds value so long as stockpiles are not immediately dumped into the market.

Then that's not oversupply, but optimal supply. Oversupply is defined to be detrimental.

Money is just paper, or digital bits in a computer. It means nothing on its own. What matters is the relative value you gain from having some of that paper or bits. And, again as I said, this relative value is changing all the time. Real value increase, real creation of goods and services, is the source of economic growth. The money supply is just a secondary representation of that, as a means of allowing for smoother transactions than barter would allow for, and also as a means of symbolizing that value which has been created.

No issue with that.

Your uncle sounds like an idiot, then.

Well aren't you also advocating to eternally pay rent on things that should have been paid-off long ago??? I can dig out my old tools and go back into business, but I still have to charge my employees rent on tools?

For a worker to be properly compensated, he would have to be share owner in the company, sharing all profits and expenses, not paying rent forever. Richard Wolff has some ideas about that since he's advocating for that system.


What on earth make you say that?

Because it's logical.

This is classic Marxism which does not work
.
This is [insert demonizing label], therefore it doesn't work.

For what bizarre reason would a worker somehow need to also be an owner?

To share in profits and expenses.

You as the business owner have created a business, you have your own brick and mortar, capital, surplus inventories, business systems, etc. etc. and that is yours. You own it. By what weird right would someone have to come in and demand that just because they agree to work for you, that they now get to also own what is yours?

Well, I didn't say it was right, just that Richard Wolff advocates for something like that and it stops money from flowing uphill through the act of employment. You brought up the issue of rents, as if the employee should have a stake in the expenses, so naturally I suggested a stake in the profits as well. But it's not what I advocate. I like the system we have now, but with higher taxes on the rich and no taxes on you and I.

The salary has to be agreed upon by both parties, in a free (non-communist, non-socialist, non-authoritarian) economy. In a free economy the worker is free to leave employment if he doesn’t think his salary is good enough.

Only if you can find better pay, otherwise he is not free to do that.


Exactly. You are as free as you are. If you have literally no job prospects better than flipping a burger or digging a ditch, then that is on you. And if that is actually the case for you, then you obviously have very little value already and you should be working on increasing your value somehow. Get more skills, get a different education, work harder, etc.

Idk... mom invested in dad's education and she planned to be a domestic engineer, which didn't count as a job skill after the divorce, so she was relegated to menial work just to make ends meet. Too many single mothers are in that situation and it's not fair to the kids to have to starve while everyone argues about what's fair.

Mandate a minimum income and everyone can aspire to make more. First eliminate suffering and go from there.

If a worker is really so shitty

Send him home and send him checks to stay out of the way. Either that or take him out back and shoot him. Whichever way you're most comfortable with. That's what we do with animals... if you can't support a pet, you have to euthanize; if you can't euthanize, you have to support them. Setting them out to starve is illegal I believe. But with people, it's ok.

Actually they aren't. You are espousing basic Marxist ideas, whether or not you know it.

That's what dad said too. But it's a logically fallacy to wrap an original and logical idea in a cultural bad-connotation and pander to emotion to discredit an idea (kinda underhanded too).

For instance I could say you're a DittoHead whether you know it or not and are therefore wrong because all Dittos are wrong because they're called Dittos and that's bad.

Right, because you are operating on Marxist 'thinking'. I've already shown how that is incorrect.

I missed that part.

Automation increase the efficiency of a certain productive process, which causes there to be less need for human labor and some people lose jobs; as a consequence of this, the labor pool increases, driving down the cost of labor; as a consequence of this, more surplus labor is available to the economy to be put to use somewhere else, in different and new productive processes.

It doesn't drive down the cost of labor per my Berkshire-friend-example and the "new productive processes" will be gov jobs building bridges to nowhere.

By your logic, we should all still be using typewriters and horse and buggies. Nonsense.

I don't think so.

You are not sure how the extraction of resources leads to the creation of value? I am not sure why you would not understand this.

Because you didn't say it that way.

Only a very lazy person, someone with very little potential value to himself or anyone else, would sit around doing nothing. But yeah that is their free choice to make. If they have nothing to offer, then it makes sense that they are... offering nothing.

Most people are lazy. It's odd to find someone who is driven.

Dang, it's some kind of record long post... I didn't think it would go through :lol:
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby URUZ » Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:42 pm

I appreciate the long response, I am sure it took you a while to write.

Skimming it, I'll just be honest that I probably will not bother to reply. You missed or mistook almost everything I said, and ignored key other things. The amount of effort it would take me to honestly address these glaring problems you display is simply not worth the potential payout, even if I thought you might rise to the challenge, which I don't really think is likely.

Best luck.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The morality of taxation

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:52 pm

UrGod wrote:I appreciate the long response, I am sure it took you a while to write.

Skimming it, I'll just be honest that I probably will not bother to reply. You missed or mistook almost everything I said, and ignored key other things. The amount of effort it would take me to honestly address these glaring problems you display is simply not worth the potential payout, even if I thought you might rise to the challenge, which I don't really think is likely.

Best luck.


Can't argue against other people's points and just assumes he's right where everybody else is wrong. What's not to like? :lol:
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users