GREED: It can be both a very bad thing... and a very GOOD thing. What kind of greed holds you?

[Deleted member 196663]

When you want Government to use FORCE to make the rich pay more simply because they have more… this is YOUR GREED. This is your envy. Just because they can afford more doesn’t mean its right to put a gun to their head and force them to. Does the mention of a gun sound like an exaggeration? It’s not. What happens if a rich person refuses to pay their higher tax rate? They get fined and arrested. What if they refuse to pay their fine or be arrested? In come the guns, in comes the force.

So it sounds like you don't believe in a flat tax rate, you believe that everyone should be paying exactly the same in taxes. That there is no justification for a rich businessman paying more in taxes than someone at Walmart. Not judging, but just want to be clear.

 

[kpt018]

I undermined the idea of a progressive tax. A progressive tax is discrimination by the Government according to how much money you earn. That is immoral, and yet people like to make the moral argument that because they have more they should be taxed more. My argument shows that they already do so much more than everyone else, therefore the "moral argument" for a progressive tax is a lie.

How is a progressive tax discrimination? That doesn't make any sense.

Because people who are good enough with their money and production to make it rich are by and large going to be far better with the money than some bureaucrat in Washington. These are people who already created new innovations that made life better for everyone. These are people who function in reality with a production level far beyond that of the normal person. How is some bureaucrat in Washington going to be better at producing than they are?

]Moreover, anyone who works for a Government group that receives a budget knows just how wasteful they are. It's not their money. It did not come as a result of their hard work to produce it. It was money given to them, and there is going to be more coming. A business does not operate like that. Their income is directly tied to how well they are meeting the demands of society. If they fuck up or falter, the business loses. If Government loses, they just tax more. The risk is not the same. Therefore they operate differently.

What does that have to do with what I've said? Obviously there is some level of funding that is required by government, you can agree to that yes? Now, the level is where the debate comes in, what do we fund and how much.

There are certain things related to the common good of everyone that has to be performed by the government. Only in libertarian fantasy land does everything get provided by free markets.

There are simply some things that should not be infected with the profit motive.

No it isn't. It may seem foreign to you, but that doesn't mean it's "crazy". It stems from the non-aggression principle as well as from the idea of property rights. If you believe that you should not use force against people who aren't using force or being harmful to other people, then all it takes is for you to remain consistent in that belief. For you to say that taxation is not theft will require you to be inconsistent in terms of the use of force and in terms of property rights. It's not crazy, it's consistency. That's all.

Ironically it is your position that is inconsistent. You support use of force with regards to property rights but not taxation. I believe both are required for an advanced society.

That's not true. The only thing that is needed from Government is protection from other Governments and to deal with disputes and punishment of those who commit crimes. Aside from that, a free people looking to survive and thrive will trade with one another. That's natural. That doesn't require an advanced Government.

So what is an example of an advanced society with the government you describe?

An obvious example of something the free market fails to provide are those most effected by recessions, the unemployed. The market simply leaves them unemployed. I suppose you are consistent and favor no safety net? What about for old folks and children? The free market says if you don't work you get nothing. Are they to starve on the streets? Or do you support child labor?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

No it isn't. It may seem foreign to you, but that doesn't mean it's "crazy". It stems from the non-aggression principle as well as from the idea of property rights. If you believe that you should not use force against people who aren't using force or being harmful to other people, then all it takes is for you to remain consistent in that belief. For you to say that taxation is not theft will require you to be inconsistent in terms of the use of force and in terms of property rights. It's not crazy, it's consistency. That's all.

.

This is where your argument always falls apart. It's been pointed out to you many times that you can not own land without the use of force.

You agree that property rights are good

You agree that we need a government to enforce those rights

You agree that we need compulsive taxation of some kind to fund he government

Once you've come that far you can't declare an income tax is immoral.

At that point it's just a matter of how big the citizens of a country think a government should be and what the most efficient and effective way is of funding that government.

You can argue that you think libertarian principles lead to better outcomes but you can't argue the morals of an income tax vs a spending tax or big government vs little government. You can only argue about policy outcomes.

 

[kpt018]

This is where your argument always falls apart. It's been pointed out to you many times that you can not own land without the use of force.

You agree that property rights are good

You agree that we need a government to enforce those rights

You agree that we need compulsive taxation of some kind to fund he government

Once you've come that far you can't declare an income tax is immoral.

At that point it's just a matter of how big the citizens of a country think a government should be and what the most efficient and effective way is of funding that government.

You can argue that you think libertarian principles lead to better outcomes but you can't argue the morals of an income tax vs a spending tax or big government vs little government. You can only argue about policy outcomes.

You would think that all the writing on the topic (and presumably thinking done on it) with all the back and forth to clarify these points Zeke would get it by now. It seems we can't get past these basic points that you are illustrating in this thread. Libertarians, smh.

 

[Rational Poster]

Do you think it's ok for guys like Mitt Romney to pay an effective tax rate of 15%?

 

[kpt018]

Do you think it's ok for guys like Mitt Romney to pay an effective tax rate of 15%?

According to Zeke it's immoral that he pays anything more than equal to everyone else.

Of course I disagree. It is perfectly moral and reasonable to require that people who earn more from the system to pay more into the system.

If we raised the capital gains rate to 25% for example or used a progressive system like Hillary proposes (tax % increase with the income from the capital gain like income taxes) guys like Romney would see no effect on their lifestyle at all, they would have no issues affording the increase. However, things that go towards helping the poor, however small, are massively helpful. An extra $100 a month can literally make the difference between kids eating enough and not.

But in Zeke's Libertarian fantasy only lazy fucktards are in that situation to begin with!

 

[PolishHeadlock]

You would think that all the writing on the topic (and presumably thinking done on it) with all the back and forth to clarify these points Zeke would get it by now. It seems we can't get past these basic points that you are illustrating in this thread. Libertarians, smh.

Honestly I tend to lean Libertarian .

If you gave policy proposition without any facts or numbers on the outcome I'd go with the Libertarian side until someone showed me he other side is better because I don't want to grow he government until I see it provides a net benefit.

But the moral argument some of these Thoreau wannabes throw around is just an appeal to emotion.

 

[senri]

According to Zeke it's immoral that he pays anything more than equal to everyone else.

Of course I disagree. It is perfectly moral and reasonable to require that people who earn more from the system to pay more into the system.

If we raised the capital gains rate to 25% for example or used a progressive system like Hillary proposes (tax % increase with the income from the capital gain like income taxes) guys like Romney would see no effect on their lifestyle at all, they would have no issues affording the increase. However, things that go towards helping the poor, however small, are massively helpful. An extra $100 a month can literally make the difference between kids eating enough and not.

But in Zeke's Libertarian fantasy only lazy fucktards are in that situation to begin with!

I asked awhile ago if zeke was indignant to most people he meets in life. I see threads like this and wonder...

 

[sickc0d3r]

I'd be cool with replacing income tax with spending tax if there were a legitimate way to get that to work, but what's your problem with taxation being progressive? Societies are usually formed to ito encourage a greater capacity for quality of life among all citizens. Progressive tax and spending policies are intended to mitigate some of the difficulties of a very competitive economic system, especially for the most vulnerable people.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

This is where your argument always falls apart. It's been pointed out to you many times that you can not own land without the use of force.

You agree that property rights are good

You agree that we need a government to enforce those rights

You agree that we need compulsive taxation of some kind to fund he government

Once you've come that far you can't declare an income tax is immoral.

The people who are in favor of taking property from others by force so long as it supports their desires always like to frame their questions and answer them in a self serving way, and then they pat each other on the back, feeling proud of the way they justify forcing property from people who have more than them.

You used the word compulsion, not me. Let's keep the words straight. You favor the income tax. I favor a spending tax only, like we had in this country for the first 140 years.

Why would you assume that a spending tax wouldn't sufficiently support a Government? There is no reason for you to jump to that conclusion. You're assuming that in order to have a Government that can enforce property rights that we must have an income ("complusion") tax. I reject your assumption. I have seen no argument that demonstrates that our country couldn't run without an income tax. I think it would run BETTER.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

I'd be cool with replacing income tax with spending tax if there were a legitimate way to get that to work, but what's your problem with taxation being progressive? Societies are usually formed to ito encourage a greater capacity for quality of life among all citizens. Progressive tax and spending policies are intended to mitigate some of the difficulties of a very competitive economic system, especially for the most vulnerable people.

Aside from what I just described in the OP?

Because Government is what makes the cost of living go up, through increasing the cost of doing business... through taxation, regulation, inflation, etc. In a free market society costs would be much lower, causing even the lower class to be able to afford more. Their quality of life would be greater as a result of cheaper goods and more opportunity.

I'm lost on why so many people think Government is necessary for these things? They don't produce any of this stuff, people do.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

The people who are in favor of taking property from others by force so long as it supports their desires always like to frame their questions and answer them in a self serving way, and then they pat each other on the back, feeling proud of the way they justify forcing property from people who have more than them.

You're the same guy who in one thread spent post after post going on about framing a situation where a man spent years cultivating a piece of land and how that sweat equity gave him the right to it.

And when I asked you if the same men still had claim to the land through adverse possession (someone else had owned it but never used it) you acted like that was crazy talk.

You built up the whole idea of property rights being moral due to sweat equity but tossed the whole idea out he door once adverse possession laws were brought up lol.

You used the word compulsion, not me.

Because you like to appeal to emotion and I was cutting through the bullshit. All taxes are compulsory, that's the nature of a tax.

Let's keep the words straight. You favor the income tax. I favor a spending tax only, like we had in this country for the first 140 years.

Why would you assume that a spending tax wouldn't sufficiently support a Government? There is no reason for you to jump to that conclusion. You're assuming that in order to have a Government that can enforce property rights that we must have an income ("complusion") tax. I reject your assumption. I have seen no argument that demonstrates that our country couldn't run without an income tax. I think it would run BETTER.

We both agree you need a tax.

I think an income tax is more efficient

Can you show me any government that where most of their budget is the result of a sales tax.

And again the type of tax that funded the US government on the first 140 years were tariffs on foreign goods. The US at the time went with he Tariff model for a few reasons a major one being that they were trying to jump start US manufacturing and production.

 

[Rational Poster]

According to Zeke it's immoral that he pays anything more than equal to everyone else.

Of course I disagree. It is perfectly moral and reasonable to require that people who earn more from the system to pay more into the system.

If we raised the capital gains rate to 25% for example or used a progressive system like Hillary proposes (tax % increase with the income from the capital gain like income taxes) guys like Romney would see no effect on their lifestyle at all, they would have no issues affording the increase. However, things that go towards helping the poor, however small, are massively helpful. An extra $100 a month can literally make the difference between kids eating enough and not.

But in Zeke's Libertarian fantasy only lazy fucktards are in that situation to begin with!

But if his effective tax rate is only 15% then he's not even paying the same percentage as me and something must be done about it.

Right @Zeke's Chaingun ?

 

[sickc0d3r]

Aside from what I just described in the OP?

Because Government is what makes the cost of living go up, through increasing the cost of doing business... through taxation, regulation, inflation, etc. In a free market society costs would be much lower, causing even the lower class to be able to afford more. Their quality of life would be greater as a result of cheaper goods and more opportunity.

So you believe a progressive tax drives up the cost of goods? What if all taxes were consumption based, but they were used to fund very progressive spending policies? Would that drive up costs?

I'm lost on why so many people think Government is necessary for these things? They don't produce any of this stuff, people do.

Maybe we shouldn't even have a state sponsored market system. Without enforcing property rights people can walk onto a piece of land that's not being used by anyone and call it their own and produce everything they need for themselves. It doesn't get any cheaper than that.

 

[kpt018]

Honestly I tend to lean Libertarian .

If you gave policy proposition without any facts or numbers on the outcome I'd go with the Libertarian side until someone showed me he other side is better because I don't want to grow he government until I see it provides a net benefit.

But the moral argument some of these Thoreau wannabes throw around is just an appeal to emotion.

You're not posting like one. I wonder if we drilled down on your views if you simply lean right on some tings and lean left on others.

 

[VivaRevolution]

ROFLMAO. So when *I* want something, it's "my greedy ass". But when you want something, it's just your interests.

If you cannot even start off honestly, what's the point of even trying?



Capitalism works fine. When you involve Government and Business together, then Corporatism takes over. THAT is when the interests of the common people are negatively affected. A business MUST have something for it's consumers, else it's not a viable business in a Capitalist Society. But when you involve Government and Business, crony's can buy favors, manipulate laws, etc to serve THEIR interests. Government has the monopoly on force. Business can't force anything. But if Business can buy off bureaucrats and gain favors then they gain an influence on the use of force. THAT is when we get CRONY CAPITALISM, which is what I oppose. That's not Capitalism, it's Corporatism.



What you're opposed to is Corporatism, or Crony Capitalism. You're not opposed to Capitalism.

No, when I want something it is my greedy ass as well.

You missed my point, even people who talk of shared economic interest are operating from a greed standpoint, as in they see personal benefit to shared economic interest.

Government and business has been intertwined since the rail road barons. Our system functioned before, atleast somewhat, because those corporate interests were aligned for the most part with the people. Growing corporate business prior to globalization and multi-national corporations, meant growing corporate profits, which in turn meant growing the American labor force. It no longer does, and hence our interests are not aligned.

Old deal = crony capitalism, but we get jobs, and the more jobs that were created, the more supply of labor diminished, and demand increased raising labor's value.

New deal = crony capitalism, we don't get jobs, as corporate America outsources, and floods our labor market through rigged immigration policy. Corporate profits increase, with little to no benefit to the American worker.

What changed, was that our interests are no longer aligned.

I'm against crony capitalism, but to pretend this is a new phenomenon is to be ignorant of our history.

 

[dr_hellno]

That is a false caricature of my position. I never said that all wealthy people live in Versailles and have gold faucets. What I said is that with a spending tax the wealthy are going to be taxed more because they spend more. That's true. Now you may find some wealthy person somewhere that doesn't spend anything and in fact burns his money in the fireplace for fun, but does that demonstrate any falsehood regarding my point? No. If you want to argue semantics and suggest, "Well you didn't say that there would be an exception" then fine, I didn't add a caveat for the very rare case that some rich person doesn't spend a dime. Whoopty fucking do. The point remains however - no matter how much you try to undermine it - that the wealthy DO spend more than the poor and middle class. That's a fact. That's the point. So do you want to dwell on the hypothetical guy who gets a kick out of burning all of his dollars in the fireplace?

Good lord, are you incapable of even a cunt's hair of brevity, FOR ONCE? It's not binary -- it's not a gaggle of Illuminati wealthy folks excessively blowing their spending wads daily, while off to the side there's some outlier who "burns his dollars in the fireplace." What about every well-off person in between who's not at one extreme or the other?

Find another way around WHAT? If there is no income tax - which is what they're trying to avoid by moving their money off shores - then what are they trying to find their way around?

Actually paying for all these "big purchases" out of pocket, the tax from which you claim (from stats pulled directly from your anus, apparently) would be enough to cover the nation's/govt's nut. That jet? The company paid for that. That limo? Company. That trip? Company. Then the business writes them off, leaving only a percentage of the originally owed taxes. Or are you indeed suggesting businesses can no longer write things off/take losses in your unicorn-world scenario? Does bankruptcy still exist? If so, who's paying for that?

Straw Men is no argument.

Ah, that old ditty. I think I saw you use "Red Herring" earlier, too. You should go for the holy trifecta.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said you were wealthy. You're a moron.

I said "how do you know *I'M NOT* wealthy?" because you suggested I was just another loser who wanted "a piece of the wealth of the wealthy."

Can you even keep up with your own convoluted hot mess? And do you really fancy yourself some kind of genius who's seen the light when no else has? Everyone in this thread is calling you a buffoon, but no -- you know. Well publish it in the manifesto, and thank you for providing us with an excerpt from the first chapter.

I've had my fill; I'm out.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

You're the same guy who in one thread spent post after post going on about framing a situation where a man spent years cultivating a piece of land and how that sweat equity gave him the right to it.

Lies. That's not what I said. I did not say that working on a land for years gives a person ownership. This would imply that slaves own plantations by right. This is in no way what I said. If you are going to continue to create Straw Man arguments, then what's the point of continuing a discussion? By creating these false arguments you're either demonstrating that haven't grasped the argument at all, or that you have and you cannot come up with a real challenge so you fabricate one.

And when I asked you if the same men still had claim to the land through adverse possession (someone else had owned it but never used it) you acted like that was crazy talk.

Yup, you still haven't grasped it at all.

You built up the whole idea of property rights being moral due to sweat equity but tossed the whole idea out he door once adverse possession laws were brought up lol.

That's not at all what the argument was. I did mention how immoral it would be to take property - rightly owned - from people who own it and work it, but I did not justify ownership by people who worked it.

Because you like to appeal to emotion and I was cutting through the bullshit. All taxes are compulsory, that's the nature of a tax.

You cut through nothing. You demonstrate above that you don't even understand the points I raised. You created a giant straw man argument. I don't even recognize my position at all in what you just said.

We both agree you need a tax.

Yes. A Government is required to survive and to protect the rights of it's people. What I am arguing is that there is a big difference between a income tax and a spending tax. I listed a couple examples of what the difference is. If you want to live a certain way and engage in certain trades, there will be taxes. But you aren't forced to engage in those trades and you aren't forced to live that way. You can engage in other endeavors to accomplish your goals if it means that much to you, free of even the spending tax. You do not have that option with an income tax. I also mentioned the problem with an income tax and a Government that continues to grow and take more every decade since it's implementation.

I think an income tax is more efficient.

You would. You want the power to take more from people via force for your own selfish desires. You're greedy in the 2nd form.

Can you show me any government that where most of their budget is the result of a sales tax.

Why do I have to show you that? This is like asking people 200 years ago to show you a Government that doesn't rely on slave labor. Just because it didn't exist yet doesn't mean it couldn't work.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

So you believe a progressive tax drives up the cost of goods?

If you're making the cost of doing business MORE through taxes, regulation, etc the business is then forced to drive up the costs of it's goods accordingly. Do you actually think that if a business has low costs for doing business and low prices that if you drive up the cost of doing business 300% that he costs of the goods would remain the same?

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

No, when I want something it is my greedy ass as well.

Hard to tell when you describe me as the "greedy ass" but did not describe yourself that way. But now that you have we can move on.

You missed my point, even people who talk of shared economic interest are operating from a greed standpoint, as in they see personal benefit to shared economic interest.

Everyone SHOULD operate with their own rational self interest in mind. To operate without your rational self interest in mind would mean that you exist for the benefit of others, and that is a grave insult to yourself as a unique free living person.

Of course people can claim that they are being greedy for themselves and that in doing so they will benefit others. The problem comes in when they use force to bend others against their will "for their own good" or "for the greater good". That's how evil always spreads, under such lies.

Government and business has been intertwined since the rail road barons. Our system functioned before, at least somewhat, because those corporate interests were aligned for the most part with the people. Growing corporate business prior to globalization and multi-national corporations, meant growing corporate profits, which in turn meant growing the American labor force. It no longer does, and hence our interests are not aligned.

Old deal = crony capitalism, but we get jobs, and the more jobs that were created, the more supply of labor diminished, and demand increased raising labor's value.

New deal = crony capitalism, we don't get jobs, as corporate America outsources, and floods our labor market through rigged immigration policy. Corporate profits increase, with little to no benefit to the American worker.

What changed, was that our interests are no longer aligned.

I'm against crony capitalism, but to pretend this is a new phenomenon is to be ignorant of our history.

Cronyism ALWAYS will lead to interests not being aligned, because it deprives the market of freedom. If there is a free market the businesses MUST provide towards the interests of people else they will sustain damage or fail. When Government bails out businesses or buys up bad mortgages or sets up a market in which the bigger business can more easily afford to stay in business than it's smaller rivals... this is when the market can diverge from the interests of the people because the people lose choices. If people cannot choose from many alternatives then the business gains control. Then interests can separate.

We used to be much more free than we are today. It's been getting less and less free every year.