JP Hochbaum
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 4,456
- Reaction score
- 2,549
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You should learn to click on the links provided.taxes are a way to keep our society running. even doing away with the federal government/federal taxes still leaves state/local taxes, and those smaller entities would essentially be feudal fiefdoms. back to the middle ages! what a great idea. no thanks.
You should learn to click on the links provided.
In that link that you could have easily clicked on it specifically mentioned that state local governments still need to tax.
look up what a feudal society is, they still have taxes.
ummm.... I am trying my best to figure out how this applies?
taxes for revenue are obsolete.
So does this mean that taxes may be neccesary for reasons other than revenue?
Like for social engineering purposes?
Sin (excise) taxes to discourage harmful behavior
Taxation for the purpose of reducing income disparity (redistribution and as a penalty for acquiring more than a reasonable amount of income or property)
Or even for other economic reasons?
like to keep inflation in-check by avoiding the need to printing money in such a volume as to cause inflation
So does this mean that taxes may be neccesary for reasons other than revenue?
Like for social engineering purposes?
Sin (excise) taxes to discourage harmful behavior
Taxation for the purpose of reducing income disparity (redistribution and as a penalty for acquiring more than a reasonable amount of income or property)
Or even for other economic reasons?
like to keep inflation in-check by avoiding the need to printing money in such a volume as to cause inflation
Oops, you sure did. I guess I should learn to read also.Yep, I posted them in the OP:
Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:
1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
Oops, you sure did. I guess I should learn to read also.
But I did a fairly decent job of thinking those things up off the top of my head, my list matched your list almost identically.
Of course mainstream (neoliberals) and libertarians think chartalism is a farce.Errr...let me see if I can get this straight. In this thread ... you argued that libertarian economics is a farce...and now in this current thread you're arguing that we can get rid of the income tax?
The "minor" detail that you forgot to mention in this current thread is that both mainstream and libertarian economists agree that chartalism is a farce.
So I can't help but be curious...what's your stance on allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to? Is pragmatarianism a farce?
Of course mainstream (neoliberals) and libertarians think chartalism is a farce.
But that doesn't change the fact that functionally speaking taxes for revenue are obsolete.
Therefore...we should just get rid of income taxes?
I am in support of a land value taxation system. So yes no more income tax, it is a massive drain on AD.
So you think it's possible for government planners to know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive?
Therefore...we should just get rid of income taxes?
There are indeed some wasteful projects and planning. But that is also true for the private sector as well.
So you think it's possible for government planners to know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive?
That wasn't my question though. My question was whether government planners can know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive. No private organization determines how much revenue it receives...that's entirely up to consumers/donors.
I do. I don't really think that it is possible for for an individual who has a full time job doing whatever it is that we do to manage our government. Thats why we have elected officials and why they appoint and hire people just to do those government managerial jobs.
So if government planners can know the optimal level of funding that public organizations should receive...then can they also know the optimal level of funding that private organizations should receive?
That wasn't my question though. My question was whether government planners can know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive. No private organization determines how much revenue it receives...that's entirely up to consumers/donors.
No, I said that they don't know, but that they probably can make a better decision that the guy who changes my oil. And no, they shouldn't be involved with making private companies business decisions.
This tread is going a little off topic and I don't want to derail it, so I am going to stop discussing this issue. I think that we have had this discussion in a few different threads before.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?