Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Those are reasonable examples. This, again, is sane libertarianism. But T-B's argument goes far beyond such reasonable points.

She would end all taxation, relying instead on court fines and voluntary donations for all government functions. Of course, she has not answered the question of who would enforce those fines, since she denies the government's right to coerce compliance and the police force, if any, would be private. She does not explain what legal authority this private police force would have to act against non-subscribers to its services. Or if there would be things such as prison terms. Or how to deal with the free-rider problem. Or how any government above the village level would be able to function.

I respect and often agree with sane libertarians. T-B, IMO, is not one.

Originally Posted by 4Liberty";p=&quot

But, raytri, you didn't notice, taxation fails that litmus test.

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

And you ignore some of the social ills -- grinding poverty, illiteracy, etc.
.

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

And thank you for being so pleasant.

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Okay, T-B. Here's a thread on Jefferson, the Founding Fathers, and taxation.
http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...=289788#289788

My favorite tidbit: "Taxation is theft" Jefferson wanted to create free, tax-supported public schools!

Hmm....

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Oh. Rats.

I think the reason I find this a sideways argument is that all laws are enforced by the implied threat of force. If tax laws cannot be enforced in this manner, then no laws can be enforced in this manner. And then no laws can be enforced.


---Wrong. To put it succinctly, the only justifiable reason to use force is defensive. Or, should that fail, retaliatory. Taxation fails this test. Obviously, there is another part of human-kind's natural make-up called self-defense. That is the only reason for having a government. Remember my litmus test? What I obviously didn't mention was what happens when somebody decides to violate that (remember, humans are flawed to begin with---we're corruptable.) The intended victim has every right to use any reasonable method to defend themselves. If it's force, then using force to meet it is reasonable. If it's fraud, obviously, it'll be retaliatory methods to retrieve what was taken.---

How will you compel people to obey the law? T-B suggests courts will fine people. To which I have two questions: Will the only penalty for murder be a hefty fine? And how will you collect it if the defendant refuses to pay? Or is unable to pay?


---People don't obey laws because they are "compelled" to. People obey just laws because they see the advantage they have in them. Remember my last post about traffic laws? I obey them because I don't want to get hit by a truck. I obey the law concerning murder because I don't want to be killed. I'm sure I need not go on.

As for the punishments, I'd prefer that it not be fines (paid to the government) but restitution to the victims. There will be times that this won't be possible, like in the case of traffic law violations (a long-standing, recognized civil offense) or in other extreme cases. But the restitution should involve not only what was taken, but what it took to recover it, including the housing of the convict, and the time of the cops involved.---

In a narrowly legalistic sense, it seems like a lot depends on how you define "entitled" and "deprived" and "use." But that's just quibbling. Taxation is an odd kind of theft; they take your money, true, but then they give it back to you in the form of roads, schools, sewers, police, firefighters, etc.


---I would counter on the one that those aren't all that the politicians use it on. You know what "pork" is in government, right? Basically, it's a vote-buying scheme. This makes up such an extent of where my taxes go, it's not a laughing matter. Including items I'd never approve of. Point is, why can't I be the one to decide what I'll support?

It's hardly quibbling when some group of people you don't know think they can take however much money they wish as often as they care to for reasons they don't have to explain, and can't be held accountable for. Under most forms of justice, who's entitled to money I earned is who I say is. But here comes the thing called government, and they can over-ride any of society's normal morals and customs for the pleasure of whoever holds it's reigns.---

BTW, how do you square "taxation is theft" with the fact that the Founding Fathers had no problem with the basic idea of taxation? Clearly they didn't consider all or even most forms of taxation to be theft. You can disagree with them philosophically, of course, but it would seem that insofar as the principles this country was founded on, "taxation is theft" isn't in the mix.


---Unfortunately, you're argument's a little off. The FF's didn't agree with most forms of taxation, that's why we've only had an income tax (that was ruled Constitutional) since about 1913. The original document had a clause (I'll have to look it up) that said that no tax on incomes without "apportionment to the states." That mechanism alone meant the federal government would have an uphill battle getting an income tax. Even so, the 16th amendment was originally sold to the public as a 1% tax on corporate earnings, not wages. Well, we see about how well politicians keep promises...Point is, the FF's recognized that taxation was an evil thing, but saw few other ways to fund the necessities of government (military, courts, police.) There exist today those means.---

Because the people doing the taking are your elected representatives, who work for you. At election time, you can fire them. It's hard to steal from yourself.


---Now that's a hard one to swallow. Just because I'm said to have but one voice in millions as to who can decide how tax money is spent, I'm said to consent? Rather odd argument. Let's see, obviously, if I voted the current gang in, it could be said I consented, but as all votes are by secret ballot, I don't know how anybody can say who it is who supports it. But, what if I voted against them? Then what? Well, I suppose most would tell me that I agreed to abide by the outcome of the vote, and that implies consent. But what if I didn't vote at all? The usual argument is that I can't complain, because I never made my wishes known. Odd argument---I'm said to have consented regardless of how I acted. Consent implies a choice, including saying "no." But here, that's not the case, I'm not allowed to choose. I'm not even asked whether I consent. I'm told that if I'll use my vote, I just might have a shot at a say at having my money (and everybody else's) go for things I want, as opposed to what other people want; if I don't, I'll have no say at all. This is akin to a man being forced into a back-alley brawl with a gang of thugs, where he must kill or knock-out as many opponents as he can---it doesn't mean that he chose this fight, where if he fights, he might survive, if he doesn't, he surely won't.---

I've written a lot of this in response to T-B, but since she hasn't answered yet, I'll repeat them to you.

No OSHA, no FDA, no NIH, no federal highway system, no professional licensing.... meaning crappy interstate roads, unsafe workplaces, questionable drugs being administered by quacks, more food poisoning....


---A few surprises here. The federal government doesn't build the interstates---the states do. One time, James Carville (in one of his books) told his readers to make a bet with a Republican friend. It was this: drive from Disney World to Disney Land, and see who gets there first---you take federally built highways, and he takes state built roads. He thought he'd win hands down, being able to travel the Interstates. But, alas, as has been pointed out on many sites, he'd go nowhere off Disney World property. The Interstates are built and maintained by the states. Not that it takes a government to build and maintain roads, as that same Disney company has proven.

Another is that more people die from legal drugs than illegal ones. If a workplace is safe, it's because the people who work there made it so. Employers don't want their workers injured any more than the workers themselves---it means lost productivity from a trained employee. Remember this: politicians know no more than anyone else how to make anything "safe." Yet they have the final say on "regulations."---

No FEC, no FTC, no SEC... markets more or less completely unregulated.


---No, markets never go unregulated. If the government didn't do it, there would be a private entity that would. For example, look at the bottomside of your toaster. Yes, see it? That familiar "UL" of United Laboratories. They certify that it's safe to use consistent with it's design. I don't see why competition wouldn't emerge among similar firms as to who does a better job at inspecting any market good or service for how well they do their job.

What needs to be explained is one fact often overlooked. The "market" is not a single entity. In fact, it's not an entity at all. It's the result of hundreds upon thousands of decisions made by people buying and selling. What I just told you of in the previous paragraph was one part of the market. Markets regulate themselves, because people participating in them make buying decisions based on what they want. Market regulation would be just one thing sold---you want to know something about a product or service, somebody will provide it for you, for a price. This is why I laugh whenever some political hack complains about the market "investigating itself." Happens every day. Why do companies have accountants look over their books? Everything the government does now to "ensure the market works the way it should" can be done within the market by private entities, and more efficiently; and if you don't trust the verdict, you can always switch regulators.

As for licensing, or as you said, "questionable drugs adminstered by quacks," I don't see where licensing doctors has made us safer. If your doc's a quack, why is s/he your doctor? Once again, there's always somebody willing to tell you whether or not this doctor's any good. You just have to decide which opinion you'll trust. You see all the trouble we have with doctors these days, did licensing stop any of it?

In fact, much of the trouble we have with some of these legal drugs is because of government intervention. It takes a company about a million dollars to get a drug government approval, and that has to be made back, because some drugs (regardless of merit) aren't approved. So, what's a pharmaceutical firm to do? Agressively advertise certain symptoms as indicating some condition treated by one of it's drugs. Not only to the public, but via "education" to doctors, too. And, in spite of the FDA's efforts, questionable drugs are still on the market---notice the recalls?---

More below.

At the local level, how will states and municipalities pay the bills? Who will pay for parks, schools, sewers, roads, sewage treatment, clean drinking water... all the public goods that benefit everyone?


---Again, not everybody uses these, so I will repeat, a thing called user fees. We already do this with snail mail and roads (at least, ostensibly. We pay a fee for our license plates each year, so why not?)---

If your answer is "voluntary donations", how will you deal with the free-rider problem?

This is great for the federal government; what will states and localities do?

Also, has anyone ever done a calculation as to what that tariff would actually be? And whether it would run afoul of trade agreements?

For instance, in 2005 the U.S. imported about $2 trillion worth of goods and services. Assuming that is all easily tariffable (I'm not sure how you'd apply a tariff to services), a 1 percent tariff would bring in $20 billion.

The federal courts cost about $6 billion to run.

The Defense budget is $420 billion. Let's assume you're isolationist and cut that in half: $210 billion.
State Department minus foreign aid: $13 billion.
Treasury: $11 billion.
Justice: $20 billion.
Homeland security as proxy for intelligence and border security: $34 billion
Corps. of Engineers because we still need locks and dams: $4 billion

So we throw overboard Ag, Commerce, Education, Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Labor, Transportation, VA, EPA, NASA, NSF, SBA, Social Security

No FDIC, no SEC, no FTC. No space exploration, no funding for basic scientific research, no social safety net except private charity, no national transportation nets, no maintenance of federal lands, parks or monuments. No environmental protections. And that's just the executive summary.

That gets us down to a federal budget of about $300 billion. For that your uniform tariff will have to be about 15 percent. We'll assume increased demand will offset the reduction in trade caused by the tariff itself.

Is that what you mean by a low tariff? And is that the kind of country you want to live in?


---Considering that 47% of every American's income is eaten up by taxes, I think our trade would increase with every American able to afford more, considerably. We import things because somebody here wants them, and can buy them. With more people having more money, there'll be more imports, because some business overseas will want some of that money, and will do his best to satisfy that demand to get it.---

A lottery would have difficulty raising the tens or hundreds of billions necessary, and anyway is an assymetrical tax on the stupid. User fees can help some things, but then your government starts to become "government for those able to pay."


---I don't see why not. The two aren't mutually exclusive. While some of it may come from a lottery (here in Florida, our lottery system takes in about 150-200 million a year, what do you suppose it might be on a national level?), I don't see why user fees wouldn't cover the rest. The cost would at least be defrayed by the lottery.---

I think a major flaw in extreme libertarian thinking is the assumption that everyone is middle class.


---Like I said, with 47% of every American's income being taken (one way or another) in taxes, if they didn't have this burden, I think what is now middle class would be the norm. Just do the math.---

I don't mind the idea of a national sales tax. But I have three concerns:

1. They claim the FAIR tax will be revenue neutral. They also claim that everyone's income will go up (thanks to the elimination of all other taxes) but prices won't rise much because of the elimination of corporate taxes. Parse that, and what they're saying is "everyone gets a tax cut, and it's revenue neutral!!". Hogwash. That only makes sense if you think there's enough fraud and waste in the current system to cover the difference. And that assumes the new system won't have its own fraud and waste. It will -- smuggling, failure to properly collect and remit sales tax, fraudulently obtaining excess rebates, etc.


---No, actually, it assumes that it wouldn't be any worse than it is now. The reason that it's revenue neutral is that people not paying now will with the system in place---without even noticing. Everyone that buys things now will continue, and they'll have more money (undoubtedly, some will just save the "new" money for their future.) But what you might not have seen before is that the tax base just widened. Do visitors to our country pay federal taxes now? Definitely not to the extent we do. But they would under the FairTax. Does the underground economy pay federal taxes? No. But they will under the FairTax. Prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. all buy things, from retail outlets, and will be paying the tax without noticing it.

The biggest reason that you won't notice is a fact seldom talked of and often overlooked---corporations don't pay taxes. This may come as a shock, but you pay them. They're passed on in the price of what you buy. The producer, the distributor, the retailer, all pass on their taxes to you as a "cost of doing business." You might be tempted to say "what if they just keep the money? Won't the price go up by 23%?" No. We talked about the market earlier, and here we go again. It's not only not an entity, it's also competitive. The entities acting in it compete with each other. This keeps prices down.---

2. The size of tax necessary (something north of 33%; and yes, I've read the FAIR tax literature. Their 23% figure is calculated so as to be comparable to the income tax. The actual sales tax rate necessary to achieve that 23% is higher).


---Not according to most economists. It's a rare one that says that.---

3. Shifts in who pays. I don't believe in soaking the rich, but I think a mildly progressive tax system is just. Everything I've read suggests a national sales tax will shift tax burden from the poor AND the rich on to the middle class. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but we should be up front about it.


---How do you figure that?---

Finally, it won't eliminate the IRS. You'll still need a huge bureaucracy to manage the system: handle the incoming payments, track every household in America so they can mail out the rebate checks every month, investigate fraud and crime, etc. All you get rid of are the income tax forms.


---Nope. Nowhere near as big---the possibilities for fraud and the like are nowhere near as many, there's fewer entities to collect from. The IRS as we know it will cease to exist. The American public at large will no longer face an April 15 deadline.---

Fair enough. And thank you for being so pleasant.

Originally Posted by 4Liberty";p=&quot

To put it succinctly, the only justifiable reason to use force is defensive. Or, should that fail, retaliatory. Taxation fails this test.