Is taxation legalized theft?

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:23 am

I say yes.

What do you think? GO!

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:17 am

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:24 am

I'd like to see the government as a insurance for everyone, a way to secure the well being and rights for its population. But then I see how governments force you to finance their evil deeds using violence and causing death, submission and destruction everywhere they go, I had no choice but agree with anarchism and denounce taxation as violent legalized theft by a power monopoly.

Post by **aels** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:27 am

IMO, it's not theft if it's a mutually-agreed transaction. At its root, you pays your moneys, you gets your services. Mind you, I don't pay taxes, so I generally consider taxation as a charming quirk that happens to other people

EDIT: What the Australian Nazi said

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:53 am

Dr_Liszt wrote:I'd like to see the government as a insurance for everyone, a way to secure the well being and rights for its population. But then I see how governments force you to finance their evil deeds using violence and causing death, submission and destruction everywhere they go, I had no choice but agree with anarchism and denounce taxation as violent legalized theft by a power monopoly.

^ well, this isn't an argument that supports the view that Tax is a legalised form of theft, its an argument against a specific distribution of the funds collected via taxation, which is a very different thing.

Tax pays for a helluva lot more than just funding "evil deeds" and what that taxation gets spent on is different for each and every government that spends it. So, rather than getting bogged down in the practical manifestations of each and every single governments machinations, the only productive way to debate this topic is to look at what tax is and discuss why it is not "theft".
And what Tax is, is different for different sorts of taxes. We have corporate taxes and here - we charge different amounts of tax based on the activity of different corporations.

There's a carbon tax that is paid to compensate for the environmental damage that is done by some major polluters - the carbon tax is paid into a dedicated fund that is then used to fund government corporations, like our CSIRO to develop clean energy, to fund planting tree's to compensate for their foot print and to act as a deterrent to companies polluting excessively.
Then we have a mining tax on resources that recognises that the riches certain corporations dig out of the ground represent the wealth of the country as a whole, rather than a commodity that one single corporation owns depriving future generations of their use..

Then there is the basic corporate tax that is predicated on the simple fact that part of anyone's wealth creation is a use of common commodities (railways, roads, everything that counts as infrastructure) that these companies do not pay for directly.
On top of this, there is a redistributive component that is designed to address a malfunctioning market and promote social equity.

At a personal level, the justification for taxation is communitarian in nature. Wealth is not created in isolation, it is as much a product of society as it is the individual. Society provides the enabling conditions for the individual to flourish -- your success would not be possible were it not for the opportune conditions of the society one works within, and the actions of your fellow citizens. Thus the community might rightfully claim "dues" on wealth that is created within the safety of its confines. Wealth is a social product.

So, in effect there are two sort of conflating arguments. First, society is a precondition for individual flourishing -- so even if you create wealth yourself, you couldn't have done it without the prior benefits bestowed upon you by society. Secondly, wealth is a social product: you don't just create wealth yourself, it is a product of your interactions with other social agents.)

In short, you cannot treat property as if it were a natural (pre-political) right, emerging from the 'state of nature', with which government may not interfere. Natural rights are a political fiction.
Rights including (conditional) property rights, emerge out of a social/political context (and justified on indirect utilitarian grounds). On this more holistic view, you cannot see pre-tax income as your "natural" or "deserved" earnings. 'Pre-tax' is a misnomer: tax is not an imposition on some prior economic system, it is a fundamental part of the system. A sales tax is simply part of the price of what you buy. Income tax is just a factor that determines your earnings. "Ownership" is not a natural relation between you and an object, but a social relation between fellow citizens: it is an agreement to refrain from interfering with the socially-recognized (i.e. "post-tax") holdings of each other.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:53 am

Yes

I mean, there are some differences between taxation and your archetypal "guys-in-ski-masks-break-into-jewelry-store"-type theft, but, yeah, basically.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:06 am

aels wrote:IMO, it's not theft if it's a mutually-agreed transaction. At its root, you pays your moneys, you gets your services. Mind you, I don't pay taxes, so I generally consider taxation as a charming quirk that happens to other people

EDIT: What the Australian Nazi said

It should be pointed out that the other people in your example is almost always - me.

Ptolemy_Banana · Post by **Ptolemy_Banana** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:31 pm

No, of course it isn't. /thread

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:23 pm

^ This.

Now, whilst I don't agree with everything the government spends this tax money on, it's not theft.

sikax · Post by **sikax** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:37 pm

I enjoy sewer systems and fire departments and public transportation. War is an acceptable evil so I can continue to flush my toilet and drive on pavement. I mean, who's really counting the casualties in "Iraq" or whatever anyway? If, theoretically, I give an IRS representative ten dollars and he spends eight of them on a war and the remaining two is enough to maintain my city's bridges, how can I complain? Mind you, that war might destroy someone else's city's bridges, but mine are taken care of. War is none of my business; watered lawn is.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:17 pm

At a personal level, the justification for taxation is communitarian in nature. Wealth is not created in isolation, it is as much a product of society as it is the individual. Society provides the enabling conditions for the individual to flourish -- your success would not be possible were it not for the opportune conditions of the society one works within, and the actions of your fellow citizens. Thus the community might rightfully claim "dues" on wealth that is created within the safety of its confines. Wealth is a social product.

So, in effect there are two sort of conflating arguments. First, society is a precondition for individual flourishing -- so even if you create wealth yourself, you couldn't have done it without the prior benefits bestowed upon you by society. Secondly, wealth is a social product: you don't just create wealth yourself, it is a product of your interactions with other social agents.)

I actually liked this.

But taxing is still theft though.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:18 pm

sikax wrote:I enjoy sewer systems and fire departments and public transportation. War is an acceptable evil so I can continue to flush my toilet and drive on pavement. I mean, who's really counting the casualties in "Iraq" or whatever anyway? If, theoretically, I give an IRS representative ten dollars and he spends eight of them on a war and the remaining two is enough to maintain my city's bridges, how can I complain? Mind you, that war might destroy someone else's city's bridges, but mine are taken care of. War is none of my business; watered lawn is.

I think you won the thread. Congratulations!

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:05 pm

sikax wrote:I enjoy sewer systems and fire departments and public transportation. War is an acceptable evil so I can continue to flush my toilet and drive on pavement. I mean, who's really counting the casualties in "Iraq" or whatever anyway? If, theoretically, I give an IRS representative ten dollars and he spends eight of them on a war and the remaining two is enough to maintain my city's bridges, how can I complain? Mind you, that war might destroy someone else's city's bridges, but mine are taken care of. War is none of my business; watered lawn is.

The first two times I read this I thought you were being serious and I was getting really angry.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:49 am

Dr_Liszt wrote:
At a personal level, the justification for taxation is communitarian in nature. Wealth is not created in isolation, it is as much a product of society as it is the individual. Society provides the enabling conditions for the individual to flourish -- your success would not be possible were it not for the opportune conditions of the society one works within, and the actions of your fellow citizens. Thus the community might rightfully claim "dues" on wealth that is created within the safety of its confines. Wealth is a social product.

So, in effect there are two sort of conflating arguments. First, society is a precondition for individual flourishing -- so even if you create wealth yourself, you couldn't have done it without the prior benefits bestowed upon you by society. Secondly, wealth is a social product: you don't just create wealth yourself, it is a product of your interactions with other social agents.)
I actually liked this.

But taxing is still theft though.

Well - I think that bit explains the systemic grounds for why we tax

but this bit

Rights including (conditional) property rights, emerge out of a social/political context (and justified on indirect utilitarian grounds). On this more holistic view, you cannot see pre-tax income as your "natural" or "deserved" earnings. 'Pre-tax' is a misnomer: tax is not an imposition on some prior economic system, it is a fundamental part of the system. A sales tax is simply part of the price of what you buy. Income tax is just a factor that determines your earnings. "Ownership" is not a natural relation between you and an object, but a social relation between fellow citizens: it is an agreement to refrain from interfering with the socially-recognized (i.e. "post-tax") holdings of each other.

Explains why Taxation isn't actually theft as it deals with the concept of Ownership..

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:31 am

Oh yes, I agree with that. I have my issues with private property rights as well.

The problem is that it's imposed on you. It's not a contract you willingly sign like Aels said. It's a contract imposed on you and if you don't want to agree with the system, the state with the threat of death forces you to finance it, regardless of what you think.

I do think taxes should be paid for maintaining the services that the population will enjoy, but no matter where you go or where you look, the system that runs the world (in this case neoliberalism) will always be oppressive, racist and sexist, it will always cause death and suffering, there's no such thing as a benevolent state, it's all about maintaining power and it's said power that the state with not hesitation will use against it's own population in order to maintain itself.

So yes, I'm all about charity and socialism and stuff, but I can't conceive in my head to force and impose my morality on anyone else. There are arrogant sociopaths who don't want to pay stuff for the poor, but I don't think they should die or submit to what I think it's right.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 4:11 am

Oh yes, I agree with that. I have my issues with private property rights as well.

The problem is that it's imposed on you. It's not a contract you willingly sign like Aels said. It's a contract imposed on you and if you don't want to agree with the system, the state with the threat of death forces you to finance it, regardless of what you think.

Loads of things are imposed on you without your direct consent tho - every single law of your land is imposed without express consent.. Nothing in a complex society would work at all if it was all about each and every individual electing in to the bits they agree with or not. You can always go off grid and derive absolutely no benefit from the existing system or you pay into the system .. In fact I'd go as far as to say that there is consent in terms of Tax in so much as when you agree to a wage, you also agree to supporting the system built around how that wage is determined.

The question here is whether tax is theft, and it's clearly not, you never had any entitlement to your entire "pre-tax earnings" for there to be any grounds to argue that this entitlement has been taken away from you, and theft is depriving someone of property that is legally theirs . I have no idea how it works where you are but "the threat of death" sounds hyperbolic in my experience. If you don't pay your taxes here, you get fined, not executed.. are you actually saying that people get killed for not paying taxes where you are?

I do think taxes should be paid for maintaining the services that the population will enjoy, but no matter where you go or where you look, the system that runs the world (in this case neoliberalism) will always be oppressive, racist and sexist, it will always cause death and suffering, there's no such thing as a benevolent state, it's all about maintaining power and it's said power that the state with not hesitation will use against it's own population in order to maintain itself.

So yes, I'm all about charity and socialism and stuff, but I can't conceive in my head to force and impose my morality on anyone else. There are arrogant sociopaths who don't want to pay stuff for the poor, but I don't think they should die or submit to what I think it's right.

This entire argument could be used to argue that there shouldn't be any imposed (legal) restrictions on individuals in a society without their express and individual consent. Every time I am not allowed to walk outside nude or masturbate in the street for fear of prosecution I am acting in accord with a societal moral code (Note - I am not arguing that I want to be nude or masturbate in the street - its just a good example of morality imposed by weight of general consensus rather than an individual electing into it) .. the overall point being, the legal system is there and applies to me regardless of whether I agree with every single law and - I really don't see how a system can work otherwise.

I really don't see any difference when it comes to taxation - At some point we elect governments to impose actions and run the country in such a way that fits a sort of majority mandate .. Obviously the system is flawed to a greater or lesser extent depending on where you live, and that forms a good argument for more transparency or less corruption but it doesn't make an argument for why taxation, or for that matter, the laws of the land are unrighteous impositions on our natural rights.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:29 pm

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:00 am

thesalmonofdoubt wrote:
Oh yes, I agree with that. I have my issues with private property rights as well.

The problem is that it's imposed on you. It's not a contract you willingly sign like Aels said. It's a contract imposed on you and if you don't want to agree with the system, the state with the threat of death forces you to finance it, regardless of what you think.
Loads of things are imposed on you without your direct consent tho - every single law of your land is imposed without express consent.. Nothing in a complex society would work at all if it was all about each and every individual electing in to the bits they agree with or not. You can always go off grid and derive absolutely no benefit from the existing system or you pay into the system .. In fact I'd go as far as to say that there is consent in terms of Tax in so much as when you agree to a wage, you also agree to supporting the system built around how that wage is determined.

The question here is whether tax is theft, and it's clearly not, you never had any entitlement to your entire "pre-tax earnings" for there to be any grounds to argue that this entitlement has been taken away from you, and theft is depriving someone of property that is legally theirs . I have no idea how it works where you are but "the threat of death" sounds hyperbolic in my experience. If you don't pay your taxes here, you get fined, not executed.. are you actually saying that people get killed for not paying taxes where you are?

I do think taxes should be paid for maintaining the services that the population will enjoy, but no matter where you go or where you look, the system that runs the world (in this case neoliberalism) will always be oppressive, racist and sexist, it will always cause death and suffering, there's no such thing as a benevolent state, it's all about maintaining power and it's said power that the state with not hesitation will use against it's own population in order to maintain itself.

So yes, I'm all about charity and socialism and stuff, but I can't conceive in my head to force and impose my morality on anyone else. There are arrogant sociopaths who don't want to pay stuff for the poor, but I don't think they should die or submit to what I think it's right.
This entire argument could be used to argue that there shouldn't be any imposed (legal) restrictions on individuals in a society without their express and individual consent. Every time I am not allowed to walk outside nude or masturbate in the street for fear of prosecution I am acting in accord with a societal moral code (Note - I am not arguing that I want to be nude or masturbate in the street - its just a good example of morality imposed by weight of general consensus rather than an individual electing into it) .. the overall point being, the legal system is there and applies to me regardless of whether I agree with every single law and - I really don't see how a system can work otherwise.

I really don't see any difference when it comes to taxation - At some point we elect governments to impose actions and run the country in such a way that fits a sort of majority mandate .. Obviously the system is flawed to a greater or lesser extent depending on where you live, and that forms a good argument for more transparency or less corruption but it doesn't make an argument for why taxation, or for that matter, the laws of the land are unrighteous impositions on our natural rights.

I am stealing AAALLL your comments by the way.

Taxation is theft only if you look at it from the viewpoint of a state as a representation of the system, not as a public administration of the country's wealth. Basically, depending on how you look at it.

And yes, not paying taxes will get you fined, if you don't pay the fine you get jail, if you resist the state will enforce violence on you. Just ask Al Capone.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:31 am

I am stealing AAALLL your comments by the way.

Naughty

Taxation is theft only if you look at it from the viewpoint of a state as a representation of the system, not as a public administration of the country's wealth. Basically, depending on how you look at it.

I honestly have no idea what this means ??

And yes, not paying taxes will get you fined, if you don't pay the fine you get jail, if you resist the state will enforce violence on you. Just ask Al Capone.

Well - yes, if you don't pay taxes you are breaking the law and you will be fined for the amount of your back taxes and a penalty charge, if you don't pay that, then you face jail time, which is a whole world away from sayin that tax laws are enforced by death as opposed to being enforced by whatever legal system you enjoy - much like any other law that gets broken.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 3:35 pm

No. It's this kind of mindset that makes it hard for me to take many libertarians/tea party folk seriously.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:39 pm

That's because libertarians are nothing but capitalist fascist dumb fucks.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:17 am

I honestly have no idea what this means ??

That IF you see the government from the point of view that it's the enforcer and representation of the system, financing it is wrong and immoral. But obviously is just from a philosophical point of view.

Well - yes, if you don't pay taxes you are breaking the law and you will be fined for the amount of your back taxes and a penalty charge, if you don't pay that, then you face jail time, which is a whole world away from sayin that tax laws are enforced by death as opposed to being enforced by whatever legal system you enjoy - much like any other law that gets broken.

And this why it's wrong. Since it's pretty much forced on you. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's not wrong.

I'm still going to steal all your arguments though. Keep counter arguing. If you want.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:42 am

Dr_Liszt wrote:

I honestly have no idea what this means ??
That IF you see the government from the point of view that it's the enforcer and representation of the system, financing it is wrong and immoral. But obviously is just from a philosophical point of view.

Well - yes, if you don't pay taxes you are breaking the law and you will be fined for the amount of your back taxes and a penalty charge, if you don't pay that, then you face jail time, which is a whole world away from sayin that tax laws are enforced by death as opposed to being enforced by whatever legal system you enjoy - much like any other law that gets broken.
And this why it's wrong. Since it's pretty much forced on you. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's not wrong.

I'm still going to steal all your arguments though. Keep counter arguing. If you want.

Yeah - I don't agree with any of that. The government may act immorally and those actions would obviously be funded by tax revenues, but this doesn't equate to Tax as theft or speak to the morality of taxation as a legally enforced legitimate way for a government to raise revenue. Its simply a comment on the specific actions of specific governments -

And - y'know, again. Having something forced on you doesn't make the case that this something is wrong .. as I said, all laws are "forced on you" and that doesn't mean the legal system is wrong even if some of the laws contained within specific legal systems are wrong.

So, it kind of begs the question.. Do you think all legal systems are intrinsically wrong because they are mandatory? and do you think we shouldn't have any sort of funded government oversight at all .. and if so, what would you put in the place of laws and government ?

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:46 am

All governments. All. There's absolutely no good government anywhere in this world.

Ideally in an utopia world, we shouldn't have any sort of funded governments anywhere. Dissolve the power monopoly and you won't have struggles of power imposing their stuff on other people. No group of people forcing their agenda on you. So no, not all legal systems are intrinsically wrong.

The problem with the world as it is, in my opinion we do need a government. Having a capitalist world without a government, would just create an uncontrollable power on the elite who hold the capital, and the government at least offers some kind of counter-power from the people, even if it's just a little.

At least they try to keep them happy to some extent. So if we want to create a society in which no institution is above anyone, any sort of oppressive system has to go first.

Sorry I just forgot what I was going to write. Something about power and how you have to be careful with that shit and we are all being brainwashed or something.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:34 pm

Dr_Liszt wrote:All governments. All. There's absolutely no good government anywhere in this world.

Ideally in an utopia world, we shouldn't have any sort of funded governments anywhere. Dissolve the power monopoly and you won't have struggles of power imposing their stuff on other people. No group of people forcing their agenda on you. So no, not all legal systems are intrinsically wrong.

The problem with the world as it is, in my opinion we do need a government. Having a capitalist world without a government, would just create an uncontrollable power on the elite who hold the capital, and the government at least offers some kind of counter-power from the people, even if it's just a little. At least they try to keep them happy to some extent. So if we want to create a society in which no institution is above anyone, any sort of oppressive system has to go first.

Sorry I just forgot what I was going to write. Something about power and how you have to be careful with that shit and we are all being brainwashed or something.

The problem with the world is that there are people in it. A utopia will always fall flat on its face so long as it involves having people remaining alive

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:47 am

^ yeah - that

The problem is that taxation and laws and society aren't theoretical, taxes and laws are there to address actual people in an actual society and none of that speaks to whether taxation is left or not .. tax isn't theft by any definition of the word theft because you never had any entitlement to your pre-tax earnings ..
It also smacks heavily of the perfect solution fallacy - that everything that has flaws is intrinsically wrong against a perfect solution that doesn't actually exist.
This has less to do with capitalism or socialism as it has to do with how we regulate a society based on any given number of models of government vs no government - and, to my mind a system that has a socialist aspect as well as a capitalist aspect is the least worst system to implement.

So - I'm at loss as to what is the point of all this. The simple answer to your question is the first I provided - taxation is not theft. All that follows that are comments on a variety of flaws in any given system that no one claims to be without flaws. Which is interesting from a POV where a superior system is being touted or as a need for reform or on the individual merits of specific government action - but none of this speaks to whether taxation is theft.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 3:52 am

I'm at loss as to what is the point of all this.

Nothing, I was just bored. And I like your comments and you have rarely replied to anything lately.

I don't think Anarchy is the solution to all problems and I hate HATE hate when people use that shit as a scapegoat. I made a different thread about it. I just like the philosophy behind it and how it deals with power. So basically like DA said, it's just a parameter to use as a way to watch over governments' power. In real life is impossible and it would degenerate.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:04 am

I've been busy and a great many of the topics at different times seem to be rehashes or stuff I have no particular commentary on -so less motivated to join in.

But - on the plus side, well done you for generating some activity .. no mean feat

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:10 am

no mean feat

Stop speaking Aussie to me!

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:14 am

It's a Nazi thing

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:50 am

The solution. A capitalist based system but a tax on the extremely wealthy and all for-profit corporations that is sufficient that when this portion of taxes is divided among the populace it guarantees that nobody is below the poverty line. So if poverty = x then the lowest possible amount anyone can make is x. This puts them right at the poverty line meaning they have to find a way to earn, theoretically, one dollar (or one of whatever strange currency some of you use) in order to be above the poverty line. Of course different formulas would apply depending on family size. Under this plan even somebody completely incapable of contributing to the economy is guaranteed the bare minimum necessary.

Also, all countries (even the fake ones) should be required to call their currency dollars and only U.S. statesmen from the American Revolution should be allowed to be portrayed on any currency or coins. There are too many unimportant people on some of the world's money.

Post by **aels** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:59 am

Um, nice try, but all coins should have pictures of me on them. Or maybe David Attenborough.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:08 am

We could just require everyone to build a shrine to you in their front yards.

Post by **aels** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:12 am

That could work.

Ptolemy_Banana · Post by **Ptolemy_Banana** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:53 am

CashRules wrote:The solution. A capitalist based system but a tax on the extremely wealthy and all for-profit corporations that is sufficient that when this portion of taxes is divided among the populace it guarantees that nobody is below the poverty line. So if poverty = x then the lowest possible amount anyone can make is x. This puts them right at the poverty line meaning they have to find a way to earn, theoretically, one dollar (or one of whatever strange currency some of you use) in order to be above the poverty line. Of course different formulas would apply depending on family size. Under this plan even somebody completely incapable of contributing to the economy is guaranteed the bare minimum necessary.

Also, all countries (even the fake ones) should be required to call their currency dollars and only U.S. statesmen from the American Revolution should be allowed to be portrayed on any currency or coins. There are too many unimportant people on some of the world's money.

An eminently sensible economic system brought down by the insistence that people in the civilised world put pictures of slave-owners on their money. Man, politics is a bitch.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 3:31 pm

Thomas Jefferson treated his slaves well. He made sweet love to at least one of them.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:52 pm

CashRules wrote:The solution. A capitalist based system but a tax on the extremely wealthy and all for-profit corporations that is sufficient that when this portion of taxes is divided among the populace it guarantees that nobody is below the poverty line. So if poverty = x then the lowest possible amount anyone can make is x. This puts them right at the poverty line meaning they have to find a way to earn, theoretically, one dollar (or one of whatever strange currency some of you use) in order to be above the poverty line. Of course different formulas would apply depending on family size. Under this plan even somebody completely incapable of contributing to the economy is guaranteed the bare minimum necessary.

Also, all countries (even the fake ones) should be required to call their currency dollars and only U.S. statesmen from the American Revolution should be allowed to be portrayed on any currency or coins. There are too many unimportant people on some of the world's money.

So more neoliberalism. Ok.

Edit: I mean, under that system it will be masters being masters giving enough to their peasants so they would shut up. But meh... I guess if it makes people shut up is ok.

Pope Bucky · Post by **Pope Bucky** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:02 pm

None of us asked to be born or had anything to do with where we born or what society we were brought up in. Don't like being brought into an existence where the government takes a percentage of your gains from your efforts, don't live there.

Sounds a bit like, "Don't like getting raped, don't walk down that street."

Also, bartering:

I cut down trees on my property and make wood furniture. I trade this furniture for food and other necessities. The government doesn't touch this process.

If I should collect money for my furniture and buy the exact same amount of food and supplies, the government gets their share or I go to prison.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:15 pm

None of us asked to be born or had anything to do with where we born or what society we were brought up in. Don't like being brought into an existence where the government takes a percentage of your gains from your efforts, don't live there.

You have no idea how much I hate this bullshit mediocre answer.
I might make another thread about it.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:48 pm

Sounds a bit like, "Don't like getting raped, don't walk down that street."

No, it's nothing like that at all.. When you pay tax you are not a victim of some wrong - you are being asked to pay into a system that you benefit from. No one is taking anything from you that you had any pre-existing rights to.. your pre-tax earnings aren't your actual entitlement given your pre-tax earnings are arrived at within the context of having a taxation system ..

Basically - this (again)

In short, you cannot treat property as if it were a natural (pre-political) right, emerging from the 'state of nature', with which government may not interfere. Natural rights are a political fiction.

Rights including (conditional) property rights, emerge out of a social/political context (and justified on indirect utilitarian grounds). On this more holistic view, you cannot see pre-tax income as your "natural" or "deserved" earnings. 'Pre-tax' is a misnomer: tax is not an imposition on some prior economic system, it is a fundamental part of the system. A sales tax is simply part of the price of what you buy. Income tax is just a factor that determines your earnings. "Ownership" is not a natural relation between you and an object, but a social relation between fellow citizens: it is an agreement to refrain from interfering with the socially-recognized (i.e. "post-tax") holdings of each other.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:48 am

Dr_Liszt wrote:
CashRules wrote:The solution. A capitalist based system but a tax on the extremely wealthy and all for-profit corporations that is sufficient that when this portion of taxes is divided among the populace it guarantees that nobody is below the poverty line. So if poverty = x then the lowest possible amount anyone can make is x. This puts them right at the poverty line meaning they have to find a way to earn, theoretically, one dollar (or one of whatever strange currency some of you use) in order to be above the poverty line. Of course different formulas would apply depending on family size. Under this plan even somebody completely incapable of contributing to the economy is guaranteed the bare minimum necessary.

Also, all countries (even the fake ones) should be required to call their currency dollars and only U.S. statesmen from the American Revolution should be allowed to be portrayed on any currency or coins. There are too many unimportant people on some of the world's money.
So more neoliberalism. Ok.

Edit: I mean, under that system it will be masters being masters giving enough to their peasants so they would shut up. But meh... I guess if it makes people shut up is ok.

I think the problem with labelling anything as "Neoliberalism" is finding an agreed understanding of what the term neoliberalism is. But under almost every single model I've ever seen, there is little effort put into correcting social/economic inequity, the whole idea is that the market is self healing so periods of economic down turn are offset by periods of economic surplus and that the government remains as thin as possible in interfering with the actual market place while ensuring that actual rights are preserved.

My understanding is that a Tax on the wealthy is almost the exact opposite of what Neoliberals recommend at a philosophical level.

Either way, I don't really understand the benefits produced by policies that simply reduce the footprint of the government giving more power to pure market forces. I'm all for a state representation of life's basic essentials and government withdrawal from these arena's is a large part of what's going wrong with our local economy. We used to have government owned telecommunications/electricity/hospitals/super funds/roads/universities- pretty much all of the essentials to life so that there was an effective guarantee of service to the poor which private companies had to compete with by providing market supportable services at a premium that the wealthy could buy into if they elected. We then had this shift towards a neoliberal ideology that saw the government selling off these assets to raise cash and progressively remove themselves from the game entirely leaving all these bodies up to economic self regulation - which just made everything more expensive - that had the knock on effect of more people not being able to avail themselves of services that saw the poor become poorer and less enfranchised and the rich enjoying better health services and access to work etc .. that made them richer. In the meantime the world changed making it more viable to exploit the third world for manufacture and services that hollowed out the middle class (who typically foots the bill for social services) that lead to the current state of rising unemployment with mega corps making a stack of cash because they are the ones who can exploit poor working conditions and weak economies to increase their margins while not actually employing anyone in the local economy.

My solution, would be to implement a tiered taxation system much like what we have here. If you earn less than 20k - you don't pay tax, and this scales up to a tax rate of about 45% if you earn over 180k .

The tax should be used to fund infrastructure (roads, rail, internet, telecommunications etc) to help the economy act as efficiently as possible and remain strategically competitive on the world stage .. there should remain in place government representation for all essential services (gas/water/electricity/schools/health) that are provided at low cost and subsidised by tax revenues collected by the government to ensure low cost and equity of services.. And more than that there should be heavy regulation by the government to ensure all local market standards (OH&S, representative min wage/working hours/conditions, EPA levels etc) are met by any goods or services brought into our economy from outside economies so that the economic field is levelled to the point where if we do buy cheap goods from the third world, those economies are actually improved by this spend and more importantly, our local manufactures and service providers aren't loosing out because of local regulation laws that are non-existing in most developing nations.

This last bit is almost the most important - at the moment our government (rightly) has in place standards for min pay, working hours, pollutants etc - that makes local manufacture more expensive that companies can get around by shifting their sourcing to countries that ignore all that .. the result, the poor in these "other countries" are exploited, work shitty hours in shitty conditions and pollute enthusiastically while our local small manufactures and service providers go under leaving the profit for enormous multinationals that can take advantage of the economic world stage while destroying the planet.

^ this is the platform I will be running on when I become prime minister of this country.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:32 am

I'd vote for you. I am feeling a little tired to think about this. But yeah, I'm pretty much on the same boat.

What I've seen from neoliberals is that they think the way to get out from poverty is making workers do more hours at less pay.

So basically exploitation and is not like workers can get out from their poverty by being slaves. It really doesn't make any sense. Which is why taxation on corporations are seen as bad for some reason.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:35 am

thesalmonofdoubt wrote:
Sounds a bit like, "Don't like getting raped, don't walk down that street."
No, it's nothing like that at all.. When you pay tax you are not a victim of some wrong - you are being asked to pay into a system that you benefit from. No one is taking anything from you that you had any pre-existing rights to.. your pre-tax earnings aren't your actual entitlement given your pre-tax earnings are arrived at within the context of having a taxation system ..

Basically - this (again)

Is nothing like victim blaming but it's incredibly stupid. It's like going to a black person at the U.S and saying "Oh you don't like our health care system because you can't afford it? Why do you complain about it? If you don't like why don't you move to Canada?! HUH!?"

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:57 am

Is nothing like victim blaming but it's incredibly stupid. It's like going to a black person at the U.S and saying "Oh you don't like our health care system because you can't afford it? Why do you complain about it? If you don't like why don't you move to Canada?! HUH!?"

That would probably read a lot better if you swapped out "black person" for "Poor person" given these terms are not analogous - but yes, the correct response to any criticism of an existing system isn't - if you don't like it, then leave.

But - it's also inaccurate to describe tax pays as victims who are asked to like it or lump it .. Being taxed doesn't intrinsically make a victim of the tax payer so there is little value in building on that analogy In fact its almost the opposite. Any system where tax is tiered results in the people less likely to derive benefit from the social services funded by tax funding those schemes that poorer people benefit from.

The overwhelming majority of the taxes I pay, goes to supporting a range of services that I have no access to. - which is fair given my level of economic privilege .. and it also recognises that I earn what I earn in large parts because I was supported by the system to get to this position. I enjoyed free education, an enormously stable economic climate, access to free health, reliable public transport, a clean environment - so me paying a load of tax is simply paying back into that system, and that's essentially what tax is for.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:10 am

Yeah, well I went with black people because they are oppressed so they are more likely to be more frustrated than the average poor white person.

EDIT: Yeah, I wrote that whole thing wrong.

But you get the idea.

I'm going to bed in a few!