Tax The Rich?

[joel]

This is a repetition of a straw man. It is not enough for you to actualize an action, have the action within your power and be willing to use that power. You also have to be the "top dog". So if you steal, odds are the government has enough power to punish or stop you (though not always in which case you had the most power in that particular scenario). In a Christian universe, God has enough power and will certainly punish you due to your breach of His anti-theft law and omnipotence (IE you can't overpower Him).

But then government can never be the top dog. God always is.

You are not obligated to obey laws under any theory.

See what I mean: Your conception must strip things like Obligation of any meaning. Indeed, you seem to be saying that it is logically impossible that someone be obligated.

Example scenario: You are obligated to not rape that woman because if you try God shows up and breaks your neck.

My point is that you are not. If I jump from a tall height my neck will be broken (ultimately by God). This fact per se neither obligates me to jump nor not to jump. The fact that God causes my neck to be broken if I do action X does not create an obligation.

Under my theory God would be under His own power (just like everyone else is).

This does not give it any meaning. God being unjust could then only be his using his power contrary to the way he uses his power, which is absurd. It would be a meaningless tautology to say that God is just.

What is an "ultimate mind" and why are concepts it proposes meaningful despite its power?

I thought I already explained. God's mind is ultimate because it is the Mind from which all other minds are derived, to which all other mind is subject. Meaning is a property of mind. Ultimate meaning is therefore found in the Ultimate Mind. Note this makes no reference to power.

Again, I must repeat myself. WHY is it that a value held by the ultimate mind would be a fundamental fact of reality? How does the ultimate mind differ from the hobo?

Because the Ultimate Mind is the fundamental fact of reality. As the hobo's mind is subject to His, so are the hobo's values and meaning subject to His.

Sure it can. Why must a rational being value itself? Oh I see:

In short, because it is a slave to emotions. That's what desire or preference is. A whim. It is not rooted in logic, it's rooted in subjective emotions poorly disguised as logic. Chemicals running through your brain.

Because rational beings cannot deny it, it is objective, not subjective. On the other hand, you seem to be assuming your conclusion, that all values are subjective. You almost seem to be promoting materialism. There is more to reality than mere quantity.

"Something that is desired is something that is good and right."
Charles Manson desires murder, therefore murder is good and right.

No, subjective values are not therefore objectively good and right. If Charles Manson values murder, then he perceives murder as good. But he is objectively wrong.

Or, if you want to get technical:
If something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective.
A rational being cannot deny that murder is a value (see Charles Manson as an example)
A rational being cannot deny that pacifism is a value (see Ghandi as an example)

I agree that that would be absurd. But that does not correspond to what I'm saying. Murder can be rationally denied as a value. That some contingent being values it does not imply that rational beings cannot deny it.

The obvious problem with using emotions like preference or desire as a barometer for objective morality is that they contradict each other

I never said that all preferences or desires are a barometer for objective morality. I agree that would be contradictory.

"Destroying something good is wrong except" means "destroying something good is wrong" itself is not true since there are exceptions. To further go back, it means that it's not wrong to destroy something that cannot be denied by a rational being. This destroys the branch of objectivism that leads to objective morality.

It's not an exception. It is always true that "all else being equal, destroying the good is wrong." The fuller statement of principle, again, has to do with the exchange of greater and lesser goods. What else is evil but the destruction of a greater value for a lesser one (or no value at all)--that is, the anti-good? Using an oversimplification to refute my position is irrelevant. (Though I may have unfortunately used the oversimplification myself.) True, it is possible that if a value (such as a rational being's life) were somehow superceded by a greater value, then it's destruction would not necessarily be wrong in that context. (Also, truth being sensitive to context does not make it non-objective. Likewise objective morality is context-sensitive, and yet objective.)

Also, I did not say that "something that cannot be denied by a rational being" is a value. Unless, by that we simply mean objective truth in general. In which case an argument may be made that truth and honesty are values/virtues. And I didn't say that something being objective makes it an objective value.

[joel]

In my daily life, I don't see how someone else's investments are affecting me at all.

Surely you don't produce all your food from your own raw resources, and likewise acquire water, shelter, clothing, and health care? Surely you would not have nearly the standard of living you have now if you did. You are currently dependent upon the investment of others.

And I don't have a problem with the way that welfare is now. You're coming from the perspective that there is something wrong with it, so it is you who has to present solutions, not me.

I'm not sure why doing what we did in the past is the default, and somehow free from burden of proof. What I said applies to evaluating the options for future action. If we want to apply the same to past actions, I could say that it seems most likely that, in the past, welfare has made those whom it was intended to help worse off than they would have been otherwise, and thus foolhardy. And even in the remote chance that it did make them better off than they would be otherwise, it is not clear that it outweighs the immorality of such use of force. Thus I can condemn such past action and such action in the future.

[Zero Tolerance]

I don't see how helping individuals in need leaves them "worse off." You're still speaking in general terms. How can you say that welfare in all its aspects is a failure? Isn't that just a universal conservative stance rather than a fact? You're still saying that welfare is BAD, and you have yet to say WHY.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only people who seem to be "suffering" are taxpayers, and if they can pay the tax, they will be alright. If they're struggling, then they should take advantage of some of the government programs that they've invested in with their tax monies.

[joel]

I don't see how helping individuals in need leaves them "worse off." You're still speaking in general terms. How can you say that welfare in all its aspects is a failure? Isn't that just a universal conservative stance rather than a fact? You're still saying that welfare is BAD, and you have yet to say WHY.

I did tell you why in my first post to you (post #102). I'll reiterate. First, I have not said that making someone better off makes them worse off. That would be a contradiction. Rather, I'm talking about actions that are done with good intentions (to make people better off) but are actually counter-productive (makes those very people worse off). I praise and respect you for your good intentions. I definitely do not want to change your mind in that respect. But good intentions are not sufficient; you need to consider the practical effects of an action. Welfare hurts (makes worse off than otherwise) the people it is intended to help in several ways. For example:

• It creates moral hazard for the people other than those you are trying to help. Making one's fellow men (i.e., the fellow men of the people you are trying to help) worse people makes the person you are trying to help worse off.
• It makes would-be charitable people less charitable and less able to give.
• It reduces the availability of goods and services on the market for those that you're trying to help.
• It increases the prices of goods and services
• It decreases wages and job opportunities
• It creates moral hazard for the people you're trying to help, thus harming their character--their souls--as well as increasing their neediness.

The above things also tend toward increasing (rather than decreasing) the number of needy people, because these negative things affect also people who would not have been needy otherwise, but now makes them needy. For example, suppose a family would have gotten by, but now prices are higher and their wages are lower (as well as, perhaps, their taxes being higher), so now they can't get by. And so now, rather than reducing poverty, you have increased it.

That is, it seems more likely than not that the above costs outweigh the benefit to those you intend to help (e.g., the cash you place in their hands). If you want further explanation on any individual point, I would be glad to discuss it.

And again, this is all besides the fact that I think that this kind of use of force (ultimately backed by violence) is immoral (even if it weren't counterproductive). Also one ought to consider the inefficiency of government programs, which will tend to exacerbate the costs listed above.

If they're struggling, then they should take advantage of some of the government programs that they've invested in with their tax monies.

You seem to be already aware, in this statement, that welfare programs would tend to make people needy who would not have been needy otherwise. So then the welfare program will need to expand to include these additional people. But the expansion will make yet more people needy, requiring yet another expansion of welfare, and so on until everyone is in poverty. But then there will be no one left to take wealth from to fund the welfare program.

[Sheepdog]

In that case, I would actually need surplus monies to "invest."

like, say, a 401K or a pension?

Notwithstanding, hundreds of thousands of people just lost millions of dollars in said investments; I personally know some who have lost hundreds of thousands. Nevermind, I'm not interested in losing money. The way you use "invest" sounds more like "gamble."

if you aren't interested you can always just put your money in your mattress. bear in mind inflation runs about 3 - 5% in good times, so in effect you are losing 3 - 5% of your accumulated wealth every year. and now that the government is spending like a drunken sailor, and is about to spend like a drunken sailor on steroids (more bailouts and stimuli), expect inflation to be even higher in the next few years. It could break 10 - 12% like under the Carter admin. Can you imagine, losing 10% of your purchasing power every single year?

OTOH, the market has over all been consistently up 5 - 10% per year average. if you put money in a conservative mutual fund 5 years ago, you are pretty much guaranteed to be up 5 years from now, even despite the current market. this is hardly Law Vegas, here.

To say that "people who don't invest don't matter" is ignorant. Not that I'm accusing you of this, but I have heard it. People who don't invest vote, and they care about getting taxed as much as the rich do, and guess what, there are far more "have nots" than there are "haves."

irrelevant. even so, if you have a retirement fund other than social security, like most of the middle class, then you do invest.

The reasons for Detroit's plight are imbricated, but if you want to choose one thing that ruined the schools in Detroit, it isn't the way that the city funds its schools because the resources were there when they put that system in place.

it's not just urban Detroit. even in suburbia, the quality of education has stagnated or declined despite the regular increase of funds to schools.

It's the white flight that has been persistent since the riots of 1967, where many whites would flee inner-city Detroit towards the suburbs and create "havens" there with vocational and educational opportunity that the (mostly black) population can't access for reasons that far exceed the scope of this topic, but if you're really interested in the history of Detroit, read Sidney Fine's Violence in the Model City then Reynolds Farley, Sheldon Danziger, and Harry J. Holzer's Detroit Divided and you will at least have your own virtual Masters Degree in the history of the city of Detroit (I would suggest more, but reading Fine's virtual encyclopedia is ambitious enough!!!).

the whites didn't fly without reason, and certainly it wasn't just due to racism. i wonder if you sources cover that.

I have a problem with your usage of "pro-choice" because "pro-choice" is unparallel to "pro-life" (The subject of abortion is about killing babies, bottom line. Save all that "rights" rhetoric for a Confederate states empathizer).

you make my point in such an amazingly cogent manner i am at a loss at how you you don't get it...

Additionally, I use "anti-tax" to recognize those against the "redistribution of wealth."

... hence your use of "anti-tax" is as meaningless as "pro-choice." both are rampant misnomers for the purpose of skewing the perception of the debate without adding further content.

Your comments here suggest a longing to return to what, the pre-FDR days when the poor were just S.O.L?

vs. the present-FDR days, where everyone was just SOL, rich, poor, and middle alike?

No thanks. I would think that in the 21st century, a country like the US would be able to take care of its own regardless of individual citizen ability or ambition.

ability is moot here. that you don't consider whether the government should be in the position to "take care of its own" in the first place is telling.

Considering the history of the US, I have very little faith that private sectors would step up to take the place of what you call "the welfare state." Prisons are already overcrowded.

then you need to relearn your US history. I'd start with Amity Sheal's The Forgotten Man, which outlines in painful detail the disastrous policies of the New Deal and how they aggravated the Depression. then, you can look into the relationship between welfare, single motherhood, and the many generations of people who've been locked into a cycle of poverty.

anyways, since you totally missed my point, let me ask you directly: how do you think the poor got by in the 6 thousand years of written history before the existance of the modern welfare state?

In that case, what adjustments would you make?

minimalize it to temporary unemployment benefits, and benefits to people who are permanently incompacitated in a way that makes them unable to work. there are other ideas i'll consider for extenuating circumstances, but the general principle is contained in the proverb, "if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat" (2Th 3)

Manhattan, because it would make people go deep into their hearts like how I perceived 9/11 did. And I wouldn't be out of a job, because I work in an industry that's necessary for places like Manhattan to even exist. If a meteor hit Hollywood, in the end, it would be like, "so what," as long as all the pollutants do not shroud the earth's atmosphere, resulting in the death of everyone.

unless you are in government work, you would be out of a job. who finances your industry? who finances them? even if you are in government work, you'd be out of a job. how will the government pay you now that all those rich people who paid the taxes are dead?

to talk about how, say, Manhattan depends on your industry without recognizing that your industry likewise depends on Manhattan (and/or other places) shows how grossly ignorant you are about how the economy works. everything is dependant on something else, and everything is interdependant. no man's an island, so the saying goes.

Obviously *I* do, which is why I vote, and why I favor "taxing the rich."

if anyone had any doubt that you are part of the problem, this statement has sumarilly and thoroughly removed it.

Bush's tax cuts have nothing to do with my employment because it has very little to do with what goes on on Wall Street or Capital Hill.

are you some sort of fur trader, travelling up and down the Mississippi on a wooden raft? you don't have to tell my what you do, just don't suppose that you can separate yourself from the general economy so easily.

and please, please don't tell me you are in retail. the 2003 tax cuts have been helping everyone who paid income taxes. if you work in an industry that is affected increased purchasing power, whether lower or upper class, they did affect your industry positively in some manner. (oh, and "welfare recipient" doesn't count as an industry )

I repeat, high gas and ect. will be all that I remember from the Bush administration.

Yeah and....? The Bush admin is done. over. finito. fin. kaput. in 12 days we will have a Democrat administration and a Democrat Congress. If you thought the Bush admin was a roller coaster ride, you ain't seen nutin yet.




now, one last question. Zero, do you believe that the purpose of taxation is to punish those who are successful and prudent with their money while subsidizing mediocrity (at best) and laziness (at worst), rather than to simply fund public services that everyone benefits from? why or why not?

[Cyber Disciple]

Granted that may be the claim for why they are able, but it is not a rightful claim.

Yes, by the individuals consenting to be governed--joining together for their common defense.

And I think the government does have a good service to perform. What about allowing an individual to choose to opt out of supporting the justice system, but then does not get to use the court system, and the state will not prosecute crimes committed against the individual, but protects the rights of the paying citizens (and those who cannot pay)?

But it is stealing if that is not how you wanted to use your value. I could take a bunch of your money, and give you an equal value of, say, styrofoam cups. That would be an injustice, if you did not consent to the exchange.

sure it is. They would be toll roads, of course, with the price being set where the supply and demand cross, or where marginal cost crosses marginal revenue.
If a road is not profitable, then that implies that there is not enough demand to pay for it, in which case it would be wasteful to build it, and probably should not be built.

Why do they need subsidies?

The government still has to pay the land-owner. But, yes, I guess the eminent domain compensation is usually less than the price at which the owner would willingly sell. So, yes, that aspect may make it more expensive in cost to the builders. (Note that the savings in cost to the government in eminent-domain seizures comes at a cost to the land owners, and could be considered a tax that doesn't show up in the books.)

But that's the point. Such things should not be decided by central planners. If the 4 companies decide it is practical because there is enough demand, then let them do it. If not, then they won't.

Depends on the demand. If 10,000 cars pass over per day, and you charge $1 toll, then it would be profitable within a year.

Then what was your point? Who else would buy a stretch of nothingness? If there is no profit to be made, because there isn't enough demand, then no one will do it.

Reducing spending. The ad says all we'd need to do is reduce spending to that of a decade ago; I don't know whether that is true, but we could certainly do it by reducing spending. BTW, he didn't say "all taxes" but income tax. And without increasing other taxes.

Definitely not. The question is whether payment can be voluntary (i.e., by seeing what service you get in exchange)

Yes, that is the government's role.
No, it should not be done for free.
Ideally the people would voluntarily support the necessities for a just society. If government is limited to its proper role, then the cost won't be very great (much lower than todays tax levels). It is possible that voluntary donations would suffice. If not, what do you think of my "opting out" system?

Not just that, but social programs, state-controlled education, state-controlled health care, eminent domain seizures, FCC, gun control, etc., all payed for with people's money without their consent. Even if I grant that taxation in exchange for representation and protection of individual rights is not stealing, most government spending is still stealing.

If that's the case then would you favor the federal government refunding all the money that each living citizen ever spent on in taxes?

[Cyber Disciple]

I'm Sorry the line that contains " not just social Programs" is part of the original quote from joel. The line that contains " if that's the case" is from me.

when i tried to quote joel's post it included everything except that line for whatever reason.

[joel]

If that's the case then would you favor the federal government refunding all the money that each living citizen ever spent on in taxes?

Are you asking if I think the government should return all money that was ever taxed?
The problem with that is that the government has only the most recently taxed money that hasn't yet been spent. The part that has already been spent is gone and can't be returned. And the government does not produce any wealth by which it could repay over time out of its own pocket.

[Cyber Disciple]

Hm... I think I screwed up, the federal government can't refund money already spent, good point. Let's try this again, do you think that the federal government should refund the money that people "recently" spent on in paying their taxes, that has not been spent on in funding programs?

[joel]

Hm... I think I screwed up, the federal government can't refund money already spent, good point. Let's try this again, do you think that the federal government should refund the money that people "recently" spent on in paying their taxes, that has not been spent on in funding programs?

In an ideal world, sure. Though it would be very difficult in some areas. Try refunding, say, gasoline excise taxes to everyone who bought gas at a pump.

In priority order, that would probably not be the first policy change I'd propose. But theoretically, yes, if the taxed money is stolen property, it ought to be returned.

[ccfromsc]

I have one that is totally different: Why have the income tax at all? It seems to me that in the history of the USA it grew and grew and grew until the income tax was started. Then downhill from there. For over 100 yrs the USA was booming, with some ups and downs... we have not had the income tax yet for 100 yrs and we are doomed.