The fairest tax system

[misterman]

My part of [Michele's] vacations might only cost me a couple of dollars a month. But I would want to know.

I'm not sure you do want to know, because it's probably more like $0.000000001 a month.

 

[Centinel]

How can the government 'violate' rights that do not exist to be violated? And I mean the recognized and legal government of the people.

If people don't have a right to life, liberty, and property, then you are correct. The government can't violate a non-existent right.

If, on the other hand, you think that people have a right to their life, their liberty, and their property, then it is possible for these rights to be violated, and this includes being violated by the government.

Are you saying that you don't think that each of us has a right to our life, our liberty, and our property?

 

[haymarket]

If people don't have a right to life, liberty, and property, then you are correct. The government can't violate a non-existent right.

If, on the other hand, you think that people have a right to their life, their liberty, and their property, then it is possible for these rights to be violated, and this includes being violated by the government.

Are you saying that you don't think that each of us has a right to our life, our liberty, and our property?

It is immaterial to me what anyone thinks about what rights they have. It is irrelevant what kind of mental construct people decide to impose upon themselves as a belief system.

 

[Centinel]

It is immaterial to me what anyone thinks about what rights they have. It is irrelevant what kind of mental construct people decide to impose upon themselves as a belief system.

Yeah, well anyway, you asked where I got my criteria for where the appropriate limits of government power should be. My criteria is that the government should not act to harm the life, liberty, or property of the people.

How do you decide for yourself where to draw the appropriate limits to government?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It is immaterial to me what anyone thinks about what rights they have. It is irrelevant what kind of mental construct people decide to impose upon themselves as a belief system.

It's entirely relevant. I would go so far so to say that it is the only relevance, because everything real is meaningless. It is only in our imaginations, in our fantasies and our delusions, that we can ever find meaning. All of the Universe-- all of the many universes-- is nothing more than a bunch of badly-worn sports equipment until we decide what kind of game we're going to play with it. It's only the rules that we make up for ourselves that cause anything to matter.

 

[haymarket]

Yeah, well anyway, you asked where I got my criteria for where the appropriate limits of government power should be. My criteria is that the government should not act to harm the life, liberty, or property of the people.

How do you decide for yourself where to draw the appropriate limits to government?

I look to the US Constitution and the laws of the land.

 

[haymarket]

It's entirely relevant. I would go so far so to say that it is the only relevance, because everything real is meaningless. It is only in our imaginations, in our fantasies and our delusions, that we can ever find meaning. All of the Universe-- all of the many universes-- is nothing more than a bunch of badly-worn sports equipment until we decide what kind of game we're going to play with it. It's only the rules that we make up for ourselves that cause anything to matter.

Sorry, but I will stick with reality.

 

[Centinel]

I look to the US Constitution and the laws of the land.

Hard to go wrong there.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Sorry, but I will stick with reality.

We're both playing in the same reality; the only thing you're sticking to are the rules that other people have chosen for you.

 

[digsbe]

I mean, if you want the fairest tax system that would be to have absolutely no taxes and charge everyone a base fee for each government service that they use (charging for driving on the roads, going into a public building, etc). However, this is not feasible (nor am I advocating this).

 

[TurtleDude]

I mean, if you want the fairest tax system that would be to have absolutely no taxes and charge everyone a base fee for each government service that they use (charging for driving on the roads, going into a public building, etc). However, this is not feasible (nor am I advocating this).

yet it is a good paradigm to define what is fair

 

[haymarket]

yet it is a good paradigm to define what is fair

It is a fools errand and even you admitted that such a system would never work. As such, it is useless.

 

[haymarket]

We're both playing in the same reality; the only thing you're sticking to are the rules that other people have chosen for you.

We will disagree on that then.

At age 62, I no longer wish to armor up, get aboard my steed and go tilting at the windmills.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is a fools errand and even you admitted that such a system would never work. As such, it is useless.

Its a good starting point for what is "fair" when that term is used. Far better than "from each according to their ability" that your side tends to fixate upon

 

[haymarket]

Its a good starting point for what is "fair" when that term is used. Far better than "from each according to their ability" that your side tends to fixate upon

It is completely useless as it has no basis in reality of the way the world really works. This is yet another example of the right wing getting their ideas as they fall farther and farther down the rabbit hole to some imaginary world other than the one we inhabit.

 

[geewrd]

It is completely useless as it has no basis in reality of the way the world really works. This is yet another example of the right wing getting their ideas as they fall farther and farther down the rabbit hole to some imaginary world other than the one we inhabit.

Actually the implementation of such a system is totally feasible, it's called privatization. The government is bad at almost everything they do, so the obvious thing to do is give their responsibilities to someone who can do it better.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is completely useless as it has no basis in reality of the way the world really works. This is yet another example of the right wing getting their ideas as they fall farther and farther down the rabbit hole to some imaginary world other than the one we inhabit.

wrong as usual. if taxes start with the premise of being based on what you use, that premise has the utility of checking massive government expansion because if ones taxes increases based on that person's use of government services, such actions will tend to restrain the growth of government.

your premise-that taxes be based on whatever the masses vote for (in terms of representatives) which tends to be based on making those who have the most pay the most, there is absolutely no incentive or restraint on the masses demanding more and more and more

when people get what they want, rather than what they can afford, the cost and size of government expands beyond all rational bounds

 

[geewrd]

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-Ben Franklin

 

[TurtleDude]

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-Ben Franklin

when you rob Peter to pay paul, you will normally have Paul's support. when there are more pauls voting than Peters, nothing will stop the predations

 

[haymarket]

Actually the implementation of such a system is totally feasible, it's called privatization. The government is bad at almost everything they do, so the obvious thing to do is give their responsibilities to someone who can do it better.

Did I miss the important part of your post where
1) you told us how this system would replace all government services now paid for by taxation and administered by the peoples government, and
2) your evidence showing us how the government is bad at almost everything they do?

I am used to people pontificating but I was hoping you could take it to the next step and actually offer some verifiable evidence to support what we know you believe because you want to believe it.

 

[haymarket]

when you rob Peter to pay paul, you will normally have Paul's support. when there are more pauls voting than Peters, nothing will stop the predations

And your plan to prevent this would be ...........????????????????????

 

[geewrd]

Did I miss the important part of your post where
1) you told us how this system would replace all government services now paid for by taxation and administered by the peoples government, and

The same way private industry (ie. NOT GOVERNMENT) provides my tires, gas, lawn mower, healthcare(at least for now), auto service, groceries, clothing etc.

There's money in providing services that the governments has shown itself incapable of providing, and private entities competing for these markets will ensure that the consumers actually get a good deal.

The founding fathers realized this. That's why they were so adamant about limited government, but you liberals have decided you know better, and that a giant bureaucracy is more effective than individuals.

2) your evidence showing us how the government is bad at almost everything they do?

I am used to people pontificating but I was hoping you could take it to the next step and actually offer some verifiable evidence to support what we know you believe because you want to believe it.

Here's the short list of failed programs. I'd rather not argue about whether these programs have failed, if you aren't aware of their failures, then you need to go educate yourself. I really don't feel like it.

1. Social security
2. Medicare
3. Medicaid
4. Iraq War
5. War on Drugs
6. Public Education

 

[Centinel]

The same way private industry (ie. NOT GOVERNMENT) provides my tires, gas, lawn mower, healthcare(at least for now), auto service, groceries, clothing etc.

There's money in providing services that the governments has shown itself incapable of providing, and private entities competing for these markets will ensure that the consumers actually get a good deal.

The founding fathers realized this. That's why they were so adamant about limited government, but you liberals have decided you know better, and that a giant bureaucracy is more effective than individuals.

As long as the government ensures that property rights are protected through the police, courts, and national defense, there's really not much that people can't figure out how to do.

 

[haymarket]

from geewrd

Here's the short list of failed programs. I'd rather not argue about whether these programs have failed, if you aren't aware of their failures, then you need to go educate yourself. I really don't feel like it.
Social security
Medicare
Medicaid
Iraq War
War on Drugs
Public Education

You provide not one shred of evidence that any of these programs have failed.

Your entire premise rests on you being able to prove that. Otherwise, you have nothing.

 

[TurtleDude]

And your plan to prevent this would be ...........????????????????????

a flat tax or a consumption tax. those who want the rich to pay more have to face higher tax rates and tax payments themselves. that would cool their desire to be given more government goodies if they are charged for them

Your dem pimp politicians (like that puke asswipe Schumer) couldn't go on meet the press and bray about buying the middle class's votes with a payroll tax cut paid for by those who already pay too much as it is