PDA

View Full Version : Things you think should be taxed...


Taco John
08-16-2007, 05:05 PM
Just a simple poll. I'm curious to get people's opinions on what should and what should not be.

BIG_DADDY
08-16-2007, 05:27 PM
Beans and hay, I think they should be taxed.

banyon
08-16-2007, 05:32 PM
I can only pick one? :shrug:

Taco John
08-16-2007, 05:36 PM
Aw crap... I didn't check the multipe box.


Oh well. I was reading the thread started in the main forum about the stock broker who was taking medical marijuana for his illness, and gave compelling testimony for it.

One of the comments that often comes up in these discussions is that the government should "legalize and tax it." It made me wonder about the practical attitudes (or even lack thereof) that people hold about taxes.

The way taxes are in America right now is ridiculous. It frustrates me to see folks that consider themselves conservative harp on wealth re-distribution, but never mention anything about the aspect of wealth redistribution.

And I'm not here to feel sorry for people who smoke. I think their choices puts them at a greater risk of being a burden to society. In fact, because of that, I have no problem with them being taxed, provided the money is going towards protecting society from the choices of the smoker.

Can you imagine how prosperous this country would be if we didn't have to have our wealth redistributed by the government? Imagine what you could do with even half of the money the government takes away from us.

Plus, the government would never be able to go to war without the consent of the people, because they'd have to either raise taxes, or deficit spend to do it (ie. tax the future). That's simply fixed by passing laws that force the government to operate on a balanced budget.

We are the most properous nation in the world, but we're cheated on the potential of our prosperity by a government who takes money out of our pockets to redistribute how they see fit, and who cheats future generations, effectively taxing them without representation.

Taco John
08-16-2007, 05:54 PM
To carry my thought on how the government should operate to with regards to collecting taxes, here is my idea of the best school system in the world:

1. The government collects taxes that are designated specifically for spending on the school system. They are only allowed to tax based on benefit derived from the school system. Essentially, people who use the school system.

2. Parents would then be given school vouchers, effectively dollars that can only be spent on the school system. The government would protect the investment by ensuring that they can only be spent through accredited schooling programs that meet state standards for education (including things like curriculum standards, class size, etc.)

3. Private industry competes for those dollars, playing by the rules. School becomes a more intmate environment. Parents get to vote with their dollars. If needs aren't being met, then, and only then does the government raise taxes, and they raise them on the right people. If there is a surplus, then the government reduces taxes and we get our money back.

Either way, the whole system runs on a balanced budget. Everybody gets the same amount, and everyone is granted equal access.

Which brings me to my last point:

4. The schools would be granted tax exempt status, and would not suffer any taxes whatsover, especially on monies raised through community fundraising. In exchange for this privledge, they have to operate with open books, since they are funded by public money.


This school system would kick some serious ass.

a1na2
08-16-2007, 06:01 PM
Everything bought should have a flat tax on it and the IRS needs to be disbanded.

Cochise
08-16-2007, 09:47 PM
I would like that school idea, except for one point, less extensive regulation of them on curriculum. I think that we ought to give people under that system more than fast-food choices. If you want to send your kids to a religious school with their voucher then do it. If you want to send them to one that is specialized into a few disciplines then do that. I think that if K-12 had more of a higher education mentality we'd be a lot better off.

If people had a chance to vote with their vouchers on a school, if private industry were given the chance to run schools and show what efficiency and quality they can bring to the process we'd have a boom in education in this country like we've never seen.

With divergent curriculum, it would be somewhat of a problem for colleges to decide how to recognize diplomas and such, but a problem doesn't mean it's something we can't overcome, through entrance examinations or some form of testing, or maybe with these private schools forming some kind of a network of recognition with a network of colleges. Just because there is a problem doesn't mean a solution can't be found.

kcfanintitanhell
08-16-2007, 09:49 PM
Everything bought should have a flat tax on it and the IRS needs to be disbanded.

IRS, DEA, and god knows how many others. Hell, we terminate half the people that work for these useless organizations and send them to Iraq we could probably save billions.

Cochise
08-16-2007, 09:57 PM
IRS, DEA, and god knows how many others. Hell, we terminate half the people that work for these useless organizations and send them to Iraq we could probably save billions.

Well, the government is always going to need revenue to operate so you're going to have to have some kind of tax collection methodology. I don't think the IRS has to go away, we just need to retool it and streamline it. If we had a flat tax, it would be easy to make it efficient of course.

alnorth
08-16-2007, 09:58 PM
None of the above. Sales taxes are regressive and unfairly hit the lower incomes disproportionately. If I was emperor of the USA, I'd abolish all sales taxes and impose mostly income and capital gains taxes. I would also make sure EVERYONE who earns ANY income, no matter how poor you are, paid something for income taxes to stop this attitude of "what the hell, just raise income taxes on them rich SOB's, it doesnt impact me!" If sales taxes are gone, even those living in poverty could pay some kind of small pittance, even if its just half a percent.

Cochise
08-16-2007, 10:02 PM
None of the above. Sales taxes are regressive and unfairly hit the lower incomes disproportionately. If I was emperor of the USA, I'd abolish all sales taxes and impose mostly income and capital gains taxes. I would also make sure EVERYONE who earns ANY income, no matter how poor you are, paid something for income taxes to stop this attitude of "what the hell, just raise income taxes on them rich SOB's, it doesnt impact me!" If sales taxes are gone, even those living in poverty could pay some kind of small pittance, even if its just half a percent.

You could make a sales tax work by making it not apply to some items. The grocery store scanners could do this easily. No sales tax on diapers, foodstuffs, other essentials.

alnorth
08-16-2007, 10:06 PM
You could make a sales tax work by making it not apply to some items. The grocery store scanners could do this easily. No sales tax on diapers, foodstuffs, other essentials.

Thats a band-aid that doesnt address the fundamental unfairness of the sales tax. You can effectively ease the sales tax burden on the poor with all these gimmicks. However, you now shift the regressive nature of the tax to the lower-middle and middle class, who would then pay disproportionately more taxes on all those non-life-essential things they can afford that the poor perhaps could not.

You can make it less unfair, but a band-aid approach with a mix of vouchers and tax-exempt items is not going to make a sales tax more fair than some form of income and capital gains tax system.

Mr. Kotter
08-16-2007, 10:15 PM
I know this will shock some of you...but I think Churches and Religious groups (and all non-profits) ought to be taxed too.

The whole notion of "tax exempt" status seems hypocritical to me. JMHO.

Taco John
08-17-2007, 12:01 AM
I don't think the IRS has to go away, we just need to retool it and streamline it.



The IRS *has* to go away. We don't inherently owe the government money off of the fruit of our labor. The founding fathers never intended it to be like that.

|Zach|
08-17-2007, 12:27 AM
I know this will shock some of you...but I think Churches and Religious groups (and all non-profits) ought to be taxed too.

The whole notion of "tax exempt" status seems hypocritical to me. JMHO.
What is the basis for this? I never knew of it until I worked in retail. It never really bothered me but I have wondered where the argument for it was formed and presented and how it came to be that way.

Taco John
08-17-2007, 12:30 AM
I know this will shock some of you...but I think Churches and Religious groups (and all non-profits) ought to be taxed too.

The whole notion of "tax exempt" status seems hypocritical to me. JMHO.


I'm not shocked that you're in favor of taxing everything and anyone. You're a democrat afterall...

listopencil
08-17-2007, 01:29 AM
What is the basis for this? I never knew of it until I worked in retail. It never really bothered me but I have wondered where the argument for it was formed and presented and how it came to be that way.

It's one of the aspects of separation of Church and State...you know, that little ideal that the Church and some who are tied to it try so hard to discredit.

ClevelandBronco
08-17-2007, 01:38 AM
I would like to tax consumption, even though I think consumption is a good thing. The advantage would be including revenue that slips under the wire under our current tax code.

As a real estate investor, I've done many cash transactions with contractors. Of course the transactions I'm referring to here were done in the distant past and they all fall outside of the current statutes of limitations. Besides, I always cover my ass with an appropriate contract.

My favorite contractor is partial to buying beer and lap dances with that money. He pays sales and liquor taxes on the beer, but he's never paid income taxes. The lap dancer isn't paying income tax on what she collects for the lap dances. But she buys food, clothing, whatever.

Take it a step further: Let's say she also buys a dose now and then of an illegal substance. She pays cash to her dealer and he pays cash for his toys. He doesn't declare a penny in income, but he sure spends. Let's tax his consumption. And hers. And my contractor's, because I assure you that none of these folks are paying income tax now. That's just the way I've seen it.

-----

I certainly don't want to tax income or investment, both of which encourage creation of an economy which will lead to increases in all three: income, consumption and investments (investments mean jobs, consumption and income for people who are moving up the ladder.

On a more local level, I also want to see personal property tax abolished. Real property shouldn't be taxed simply because an investor holds it as a personal residence or as an investment property.

A consumption tax is the only plan that makes sense to me. I'm sure there are holes in the simplistic ideas I've talked about here. I'm open to just about every argument that includes the abolition of the IRS.

And that's probably a pipe dream.

ClevelandBronco
08-17-2007, 01:53 AM
I should say one more thing about property taxes. I don't pay property taxes on my rental properties. My renters pay them for me and they could do better things with their money.

Property tax on investment real estate is a regressive tax that is paid by people who can't even afford to own property.

I dare you to find any fairness in that.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-17-2007, 03:16 AM
I should say one more thing about property taxes. I don't pay property taxes on my rental properties. My renters pay them for me and they could do better things with their money.

Property tax on investment real estate is a regressive tax that is paid by people who can't even afford to own property.

I dare you to find any fairness in that.



Someone with money who cares about poor people's injustice? Don't run for office, you'd lose. Congratulations though on keeping your soul.

ClevelandBronco
08-17-2007, 03:37 AM
Someone with money who cares about poor people's injustice? Don't run for office, you'd lose. Congratulations though on keeping your soul.

Here's something weirder, Mr. Flopnuts: I get to itemize a deduction from my income taxes for the property taxes my renters pay for me. They don't get that deduction. I do.

This tax code is warped.

a1na2
08-17-2007, 04:47 AM
The IRS *has* to go away. We don't inherently owe the government money off of the fruit of our labor. The founding fathers never intended it to be like that.

I think you have missed the whole concept of the country. What exactly gives you the idea that the founding fathers didn't go with taxing the people to support and defend the country?

StcChief
08-17-2007, 07:41 AM
Radio button vs. Check boxes. any clue what your doing

Ultra Peanut
08-17-2007, 08:07 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vUwOiHLgEak"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vUwOiHLgEak" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Jilly
08-17-2007, 08:20 AM
I know this will shock some of you...but I think Churches and Religious groups (and all non-profits) ought to be taxed too.

The whole notion of "tax exempt" status seems hypocritical to me. JMHO.

I can see a person saying this, but why does it seem hypocritical? Wouldn't this be a collapse of the separation of church and state?

StcChief
08-17-2007, 08:25 AM
I know this will shock some of you...but I think Churches and Religious groups (and all non-profits) ought to be taxed too.

The whole notion of "tax exempt" status seems hypocritical to me. JMHO.

Money donated to them by members was taxed already. Double taxation BS has to go.

Tax on used cars? They were taxed when initially purchased

patteeu
08-17-2007, 09:33 AM
There are already some good answers in this thread so I will say that I agree with ClevelandBronco (his entire post about consumption taxes) and a1na2 (about applying the tax to as broad a base as possible) and Cochise (about never being able to completely rid ourselves of the IRS) and Kotter (about not supporting tax exempt status for churches).

I think the best tax would be a consumption tax that covered all items of consumption (both necessities and luxuries) at the same low rate paid by everyone who consumes. By broadening the base like this, the rate can be minimized. By keeping it a single rate, the tax is easily understood by everyone who pays it and it eliminates the opportunity for politicians to use the tax code as a candy store for lobbiests. If the rate is the same for everyone, it eliminates any 1st amendment argument churches would have. It also minimizes economic distortions of both the intended kind (ie government trying to influence behavior) and the unintended kind (ie government accidentally influencing behavior in unpredictable ways).

These things could also be done with a flat income tax on net income (annual income minus net annual change in savings), but with a consumption tax we'd get benefits in the global marketplace. Consumption taxes could be applied to imports so that the price of foreign products reflect the same tax burden that domestic products carry and they wouldn't be applied to exports so that our products could compete on an equal footing in overseas markets.

My problem with Taco's tax/education idea is that it fails in almost all the traits I find desireable.

StcChief
08-17-2007, 09:36 AM
Flat tax. Use tax. Minimize the IRS needs

banyon
08-17-2007, 11:55 AM
Churches are tax-exempt under the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Ever since McCoullough v. Maryland, when Justice Marshall invoked the famous line "The power to tax is the power to destroy". This status has been codified in the Internal Revenue Code by having organizations to file for 501(c)(3) status.

I don't think taxing churches is a good idea, even if they are blurring the line between religion and politics.

pikesome
08-17-2007, 12:05 PM
Nothing. I refer people to their copies of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The best way to keep the Gov small and inoffensive is starve it like Nicole Richie.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2007, 01:14 PM
I think you have missed the whole concept of the country. What exactly gives you the idea that the founding fathers didn't go with taxing the people to support and defend the country?
He didn't say that...he said off the "fruit of their own labor."

I have to agree. The Framers were against such notions of taxing income, but mainly because they KNEW if govt, which was to be kept limited, had easy access to money it would grow, get involved in more areas of our lives which would destroy liberty. So our limited govt was run on funds from a tariff system. Of course there was no welfare state so it was more workable.

The sad thing about today, is all I see most Americans arguing about, both Dems and Pubs, is what else our govt could tax or taxing it differently in a revenue neutral manner WITHOUT ever questioning the concept that it just increases govt and govt power. I don't think things like marijuana should be legal so the govt can tax, tax and tax it. Because I don't want the govt to have access to more and more money. To hell with sin taxes too. So now we've come to consider expanding taxes to churches?! Yeah! Let's make put them under control of the state![/sarcasm]

The issue of taxes has to be done within the frame of how much govt are we going to have. Otherwise, reform is just a bandaid.

Other than that, the other main problem I have with an income tax is that it penalizes production and the producers of society while discouraging savings. It's devastating resulting in more dependence of govt to provide things we could do better providing for ourselves. What one penalizes one gets less of too. Production creates wealth which lifts people up including the poor. Then we wouldn't have to worry about a tax being regressive like mini-commies would who hate the idea of a robust prosperity or anyone getting wealthy. For those who consider regressivity a problem, we should worry about the other means of funds for the govt: inflation that monetarizes debt and deficits. Now that's regressive and hidden which hurts the poor the most, not to mention those on fixed incomes and middle-class. Of course, govts like this because it's not easily seen.

I don't think necessities like food should ever be taxed though.
And any tax that gets too high, consumption or income, can still create a black market. And any tax,consumption or income, will still require some sort of tax collection agency.

Taco John
08-17-2007, 02:40 PM
While we're at it, we need to get rid of capital gains taxes.

Cochise
08-17-2007, 02:42 PM
While we're at it, we need to get rid of capital gains taxes.

Depending on who gets elected this time around, they might be doubling.

Taco John
08-17-2007, 02:47 PM
Depending on who gets elected this time around, they might be doubling.


Yeah, but to be fair to your statement, the reason they might be doubling is due to the deficit spending of the person who got elected last time around.

banyon
08-17-2007, 02:49 PM
While we're at it, we need to get rid of capital gains taxes.

Why?

Cochise
08-17-2007, 03:43 PM
Yeah, but to be fair to your statement, the reason they might be doubling is due to the deficit spending of the person who got elected last time around.

Oh please. They were going to at least raise them back to previous levels.

The notion that Democrats really, really don't want to raise taxes, but darn it, they got in there and looked at the numbers and there's just no other way, they hate raising taxes and by golly they did everything... all that is just patently absurd.

Do you really think that they wouldn't raise taxes given the opportunity? They never saw a tax increase they didn't like. They think your tax burden should be 40, 50% or more. I bet that if they were honest, they'd say that rich people should be paying 60 or 70%. I saw Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson on TV once, don't remember which, on some cable news show, and whoever (think it was Sharpton now that I'm thinking about it...) conceded that a 50% tax rate would not be enough to run the country the way they think it should be run. And this is all contrary to the fact that tax revenues under the current level are higher than ever. If they double the capital gains tax up to 30% and crank up the marginal rates it's going to result in less money in the treasury, not more.

I'm sitting here chuckling audibly that the Democrats don't want to raise taxes unless their hands are tied. There's always another entitlement that is needed, there's always a pet project to be funded, there's always some afflicted minority that just needs some government funding, there's always some critical problem this election cycle that they are going to raise taxes and fix. They only want to raise taxes on days that end in Y.

BIG_DADDY
08-17-2007, 03:47 PM
Flat tax. Use tax. Minimize the IRS needs
AMEN

Adept Havelock
08-17-2007, 03:56 PM
Nothing. I refer people to their copies of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The best way to keep the Gov small and inoffensive is starve it like Nicole Richie.

Always glad to find an old choom, fellow Loonie. I always liked Prof's notion of having members of government pay for their ideas out of own pocket. More talk-talk, less hand in my pocket. :thumb:

TANSTAAFL!

BucEyedPea
08-17-2007, 04:05 PM
There are already some good answers in this thread so I will say that I agree withand Kotter (about not supporting tax exempt status for churches).

You're kidding me? You claim to be a conservative and a libertarian with a small "l"? You claim to demand a return to the Constitution our Framer's gave us? You astound me at times, pat.

Taxing is just another form of control, no matter how it's spinned, and this will eventually lead to govt flexing its muscles against churches, which it has already done by threatening to take away tax-exempt status if they behave politically and/or if their views don't meet mainstream ideas of religion. Ultimately it could lead to secularization of churches too...say if they don't ordained gay ministers as a form of discrimination. Not okay and a very dangerous idea that IS incompatible with liberty.

First and Tenth Amendments apply.

And yes we CAN do away with an IRS, just not some type of tax collection agency. The Fair Tax I believe is collected via the States and abolishes the IRS.

CHIEF4EVER
08-17-2007, 04:47 PM
The IRS *has* to go away. We don't inherently owe the government money off of the fruit of our labor. The founding fathers never intended it to be like that.

:clap:

Best post I have ever seen you make. I am also in favor of a concept such as the Fair Tax. People don't realize how much extra income would come into the Federal Government through such a system. People in current tax shelters and those making their living through illegal means would also pay taxes because they have to buy their normal everyday goods SOMEWHERE. Some form of workable National Sales Tax make perfect sense in that regard. People also don't realize how much of our tax money goes to MAINTAINING the billion headed Hydra known as the IRS. The IRS would no longer be needed to ENFORCE tax code but just to collect taxes paid upon consumption. JMO

Cochise
08-17-2007, 04:47 PM
Taxing is just another form of control, no matter how it's spinned, and this will eventually lead to govt flexing its muscles against churches, which it has already done by threatening to take away tax-exempt status if they behave politically and/or if their views don't meet mainstream ideas of religion. Ultimately it could lead to secularization of churches too...say if they don't ordained gay ministers as a form of discrimination. Not okay and a very dangerous idea that IS incompatible with liberty.

This is already happening in Canada. You can be jailed for 2 years for "hate speech" there.

I think we're kidding ourselves if we don't think that the far left would like the same here.

patteeu
08-17-2007, 05:03 PM
You're kidding me? You claim to be a conservative and a libertarian with a small "l"? You claim to demand a return to the Constitution our Framer's gave us? You astound me at times, pat.

Taxing is just another form of control, no matter how it's spinned, and this will eventually lead to govt flexing its muscles against churches, which it has already done by threatening to take away tax-exempt status if they behave politically and/or if their views don't meet mainstream ideas of religion. Ultimately it could lead to secularization of churches too...say if they don't ordained gay ministers as a form of discrimination. Not okay and a very dangerous idea that IS incompatible with liberty.

First and Tenth Amendments apply.

And yes we CAN do away with an IRS, just not some type of tax collection agency. The Fair Tax I believe is collected via the States and abolishes the IRS.

If we have a single rate, broad based tax, there would be no 1st Amendment issue. As long as there wasn't a way for the government to threaten churches with different tax rates, there would be no government leverage over the churches. Less than the present system which has the government deciding on which tax exemptions are legitmate and which are not, IMO.

Our federal government *is* going to have a source of revenue. I've heard some libertarians advocate tariffs and duties as a sole source of revenue, but I don't think it's possible and I don't think it's good for the US economy. IMO, some form of consumption tax with a single rate, that applies to as close to every consumption transaction as possible, regardless of who, when, or why, is the best form of taxation. The FAIR tax is as close to my ideal as most "practical" propsals can get. I doubt if the FAIR tax has an exemption for churches.

As for the elimination of the IRS, I just don't see the federal government ever putting itself at the mercy of state tax collectors. IMO, there will always be a federal tax collector, but under certain types of taxes (e.g. sales tax) they could piggy back much of the enforcement/collection function off of what the States are doing and thereby become much less directly intrusive toward average citizens.

alnorth
08-17-2007, 06:02 PM
I should say one more thing about property taxes. I don't pay property taxes on my rental properties. My renters pay them for me and they could do better things with their money.

Property tax on investment real estate is a regressive tax that is paid by people who can't even afford to own property.

I dare you to find any fairness in that.

One of the best-kept secrets in America today is how cheap it is to rent vs own. If you arent getting 1% of the property value per month in rent (which you might, then good for you), then the renters probably arent paying enough for it to be worth the hassle and expense as an investment property. If the renters werent helping you to pay for the property tax, it would only make the rent vs own expense gap even more dramatic.

Right now, especially in the current real estate market, homeownership is a lifestyle choice, not an investment decision.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2007, 06:51 PM
If we have a single rate, broad based tax, there would be no 1st Amendment issue.
That's not true. That'd only be true if it's a sales tax.

As long as there wasn't a way for the government to threaten churches with different tax rates, there would be no government leverage over the churches.
Don't count on that happening once they're allowed. It's naive. These things only grow.

Less than the present system which has the government deciding on which tax exemptions are legitmate and which are not, IMO.
See above.

Our federal government *is* going to have a source of revenue. I've heard some libertarians advocate tariffs and duties as a sole source of revenue, but I don't think it's possible and I don't think it's good for the US economy.
No kidding it will have a source of revenue.
Never heard of a libertarian advocate tariffs, EVER...but the opposite.
It's just how it was once done before.
It didn't really hurt the American economy either, as fake free-traders who support nafta claim, because America grew from a backward wilderness to an economic powerhouse unlike any other in history.
No one can beat that record. I was not talking about protective tariffs either.
Instead we pay taxes to fund centrally planned managed trade international bureacracies with subsidies and call it free trade. LoL!


IMO, some form of consumption tax with a single rate, that applies to as close to every consumption transaction as possible, regardless of who, when, or why, is the best form of taxation.The FAIR tax is as close to my ideal as most "practical" propsals can get. I doubt if the FAIR tax has an exemption for churches.
A church buying something with sales tax is done now as well but this isn't seem exactly what you said above and earlier.

Fair Tax is a compromise for me. What I like about it is:

an abusive agency no longer has access to private papers of it's citizens
who have to prove to the govt what they can keep and which makes them a nation of cheats.
doesn't tax production
people are going to see continued govt growth on the price tags right before their eyes, which I hope to leads to reforming the Leviathon. ( Just think if we never had itemized deductions there may have been a revolt earlier.)

As for the elimination of the IRS, I just don't see the federal government ever putting itself at the mercy of state tax collectors.

Well, then that's not the Fair Tax bill.

Calcountry
08-17-2007, 07:04 PM
Just a simple poll. I'm curious to get people's opinions on what should and what should not be.Thigs that should be taxed: All of Taco Johns money.

patteeu
08-17-2007, 07:34 PM
That's not true. That'd only be true if it's a sales tax.

I disagree. You'd have to show me why there'd necessarily be a constitutional issue under a different form of taxation for me to change my opinion and I'm confident you can't.

patteeu
08-17-2007, 07:34 PM
Don't count on that happening once they're allowed. It's naive. These things only grow.

You call me naive, but you support the same kind of issue with the FAIR tax. Its advocates propose the FAIR Tax as an alternative to the Income Tax. Knowing that future Congresses would simply reinstate the tax if it were only legislatively repealed, they call for a constitutional amendment that would prevent it. I think we need a constitutional amendment that would prevent

CHIEF4EVER
08-17-2007, 07:37 PM
Right now, especially in the current real estate market, homeownership is a lifestyle choice, not an investment decision.

I would disagree with that to a degree. Depends on the state you live in. My property has appreciated dramatically since I bought it 7 years ago.

patteeu
08-17-2007, 07:40 PM
No kidding it will have a source of revenue.
Never heard of a libertarian advocate tariffs, EVER...but the opposite.
It's just how it was once done before.
It didn't really hurt the American economy either, as fake free-traders who support nafta claim, because America grew from a backward wilderness to an economic powerhouse unlike any other in history.
No one can beat that record. I was not talking about protective tariffs either.
Instead we pay taxes to fund centrally planned managed trade international bureacracies with subsidies and call it free trade. LoL!

If you've never seen a Libertarian propose reverting back to the taxation system used in the days of our founders, maybe you haven't read enough Libertarian literature. :shrug:

The fact that we transported our imports and exports with sailing ships in the early days of our country didn't hurt us economically either, but if we tried to do that today...

patteeu
08-17-2007, 07:43 PM
A church buying something with sales tax is done now as well but this isn't seem exactly what you said above and earlier.

You must have read something into my previous posts that wasn't there.

bkkcoh
08-17-2007, 07:51 PM
Stupidity should be taxed.


There wouldn't be a shortage of revenue if that were done.

Logical
08-17-2007, 08:12 PM
I would have voted for all of the above.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2007, 08:15 PM
If you've never seen a Libertarian propose reverting back to the taxation system used in the days of our founders, maybe you haven't read enough Libertarian literature. :shrug:
Like who?
NEVER heard of it. They're very opposed to any tariff as protectionist...and they're the true free-traders. But it's a grass roots free-trade, per them. The govt's role would be do away with tariffs per them. Or even on a nation by nation basis, which I can favor if there's another revenue source to take its place. But Libertarians certainly would have no taxation for excessive bureacracies, and subsidies/socialism for losses with free-trade for profits. That's just disguised mercantilism. That is soo 16th and 17th century.

The fact that we transported our imports and exports with sailing ships in the early days of our country didn't hurt us economically either, but if we tried to do that today...
Transport technology of yesteryear is not comparable to a policy of action. The trade policy of yesteryear that is comparable to what is being done today is called "mercantilism"....when things are written to favor certain interests and managed by the state. It's just another form of protectionism.

National sovereignty is also a barrier to absolute free trade....should be do away with that too?

One of the reasons for having the Constitution was because states were enacting protective tariffs on other states and also barring entry. So it was able to enact free-trade between the states. I wouldn't want political integration with other nations or internationalist organizations for absolute free international trade. On a scale of 1-10. I'm a 7 on free trade with no compromise on sovereignty. A tariff that takes the burden off Americans as right of citizneship for entry so long as it's not so high to discourage trade is fine with me.

Logical
08-17-2007, 09:07 PM
Everything bought should have a flat tax on it and the IRS needs to be disbanded.

I almost agree, sales tax on everything, IRS gone, and more taxes on Cigarettes, Alcohol, and gasoline as a disincentive to use them.

Ultra Peanut
08-17-2007, 10:00 PM
I almost agree, sales tax on everything, IRS gone, and more taxes on Cigarettes, Alcohol, and gasoline as a disincentive to use them.Awesome. So poor people not only pay more, proportionally speaking, for food, but they can't even drive to work or school without getting hit even worse than the middle and upper classes.

CHIEF4EVER
08-17-2007, 10:11 PM
Awesome. So poor people not only pay more, proportionally speaking, for food, but they can't even drive to work or school without getting hit even worse than the middle and upper classes.
Firstly, which 'poor' are you talking about? The ones who quite simply can't catch a break because of the region they live in and the availability of work or the ones who are 2d or 3d generation Welfare recipients that really don't want to work? I see BOTH on a daily basis. Went to HS with some of them. The big problem I see here is the overuse of illegal labor for production jobs and low wage construction jobs. Not that MOST folks I know wouldn't take those jobs. Most would. That being said, there are some who say 'What the hell, why bother? The Gubment will take care of me'. The latter are (no pun intended) latter day slaves to the system. Something has to change U P. The amount of consumption tax they pay is not even an issue.

Logical
08-17-2007, 10:40 PM
Awesome. So poor people not only pay more, proportionally speaking, for food, but they can't even drive to work or school without getting hit even worse than the middle and upper classes.

Hey they shouldn't be poor.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 04:56 AM
Like who?
NEVER heard of it. They're very opposed to any tariff as protectionist...and they're the true free-traders. But it's a grass roots free-trade, per them. The govt's role would be do away with tariffs per them. Or even on a nation by nation basis, which I can favor if there's another revenue source to take its place. But Libertarians certainly would have no taxation for excessive bureacracies, and subsidies/socialism for losses with free-trade for profits. That's just disguised mercantilism. That is soo 16th and 17th century.

How about Gary North (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north18.html)?

Transport technology of yesteryear is not comparable to a policy of action. The trade policy of yesteryear that is comparable to what is being done today is called "mercantilism"....when things are written to favor certain interests and managed by the state. It's just another form of protectionism.

National sovereignty is also a barrier to absolute free trade....should be do away with that too?

One of the reasons for having the Constitution was because states were enacting protective tariffs on other states and also barring entry. So it was able to enact free-trade between the states. I wouldn't want political integration with other nations or internationalist organizations for absolute free international trade. On a scale of 1-10. I'm a 7 on free trade with no compromise on sovereignty. A tariff that takes the burden off Americans as right of citizneship for entry so long as it's not so high to discourage trade is fine with me.

First you seemed to be lecturing me because you don't think I'm "free trade" enough and now you're telling me that you're not completely "free trade" and you're suggesting I might want to do away with national sovereignty in pursuit of too much "free trade"? You're all over the map on this.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2007, 08:37 AM
How about Gary North (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north18.html)?
That's unusual though. Pure libertarians don't believe in borders.
They're anarchists. I'd say he is not really libertarian due to that point on that point.

Besides, North also believes in "strict legal system based on Biblical laws, which might execute people for violations of those laws." Northwiki/Gary_North (http://en.wikipedia.org/). Not libertarian either.

Friedman is considered one too, but I don't think he really fits the mold either economically. Some libertarians are critical of him.


First you seemed to be lecturing me because you don't think I'm "free trade" enough

Huh?
I don't think that.
Where do you get that idea?

...and now you're telling me that you're not completely "free trade" and you're suggesting I might want to do away with national sovereignty in pursuit of too much "free trade"? You're all over the map on this.
I'm not suggesting "you" as doing that. I am suggesting that the logical and inevitable conclusion of absolute free-trade is no borders because everyone would have to have the same laws and justice system. I just didn't agree with your comparison, because it's not in the same category of thing.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 09:27 AM
That's unusual though. Pure libertarians don't believe in borders.
They're anarchists. I'd say he is not really libertarian due to that point on that point.

Besides, North also believes in "strict legal system based on Biblical laws, which might execute people for violations of those laws." Northwiki/Gary_North (http://en.wikipedia.org/). Not libertarian either.

Friedman is considered one too, but I don't think he really fits the mold either economically. Some libertarians are critical of him.




Huh?
I don't think that.
Where do you get that idea?


I'm not suggesting "you" as doing that. I am suggesting that the logical and inevitable conclusion of absolute free-trade is no borders because everyone would have to have the same laws and justice system. I just didn't agree with your comparison, because it's not in the same category of thing.

Alright, fair enough. On the point about Gary North, I agree with you that extreme libertarians are for open borders (or the elimination of borders), but I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of people who ought to be counted as libertarians who aren't that extreme. Among them, they have a variety of views on taxation and borders and many of the other issues. One common theme is elimination of the federal income tax, but they don't agree on how or to what extent to replace it.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2007, 10:03 AM
Alright, fair enough. On the point about Gary North, I agree with you that extreme libertarians are for open borders (or the elimination of borders), but I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of people who ought to be counted as libertarians who aren't that extreme. Among them, they have a variety of views on taxation and borders and many of the other issues. One common theme is elimination of the federal income tax, but they don't agree on how or to what extent to replace it.
I don't necessarily disagree with this either. It probably comes down to specifics.

I just think North falls into the paleo-conservative mode far more due to his social policy views. Paleo-Cons and libertarians share common ground on economics with libertarians....but they part ways on social issues. I agree with that. Pat Buchanan, a leading paleo-con, has said the same thing in his books.

I do agree that there are shades of libertarianism....depending on how they feel about borders,civil rights etc. There's even pro-life, libertarians as that is a violation of the aggression doctrine. I just think there is a demarcation point where they cross over into something else.* That's why I said "pure" libertarian. In fact it is due to this type thing that I do not call myself a libertarian but a paleo-con with a libertarian streak. I'm actually just trying to be precise.


* For instance vouchers are not libertarian at all since they still do not lead to liberty.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 10:19 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with this either. It probably comes down to specifics.

I just think North falls into the paleo-conservative mode far more due to his social policy views. Paleo-Cons and libertarians share common ground on economics with libertarians....but they part ways on social issues. I agree with that. Pat Buchanan, a leading paleo-con, has said the same thing in his books.

I do agree that there are shades of libertarianism....depending on how they feel about borders,civil rights etc. There's even pro-life, libertarians as that is a violation of the aggression doctrine. I just think there is a demarcation point where they cross over into something else.* That's why I said "pure" libertarian. In fact it is due to this type thing that I do not call myself a libertarian but a paleo-con with a libertarian streak. I'm actually just trying to be precise.


* For instance vouchers are not libertarian at all since they still do not lead to liberty.

I think it's fine to try to be precise, but I think that sometimes you have to accept some imprecision on the part of others, especially when there are such blurry lines separating these categories. It's hard to be strictly precise when there aren't strict differentiators.

I call myself a pragmatic libertarian (with a small "l") for the same reason you say you have a libertarian streak. I'm trying to be accurate and I realize that I don't buy into some Libertarian ideas like open borders. I'm against the concept of school vouchers btw.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2007, 10:41 AM
I think it's fine to try to be precise, but I think that sometimes you have to accept some imprecision on the part of others, especially when there are such blurry lines separating these categories. It's hard to be strictly precise when there aren't strict differentiators.

I call myself a pragmatic libertarian (with a small "l") for the same reason you say you have a libertarian streak. I'm trying to be accurate and I realize that I don't buy into some Libertarian ideas like open borders. I'm against the concept of school vouchers btw.

I don't think one can be for an aggressive pre-emptive war on the basis of the fundamentals of libertarianism though, including the idea of needing to secure oil as our interest. It's not believing in the market but govt more. Mainly though it is a violation of the non-aggression doctrine which you can't say for some other issues where they can differ. I think that's a very clear and distinctive demarcation line. As well as support for Nafta and pragmatic conservativism.( to some degree this could be, but imo not the Gingrich kind). Both of which are heavy on govt and a managed economy. Those three things together take it out of the realm. It's just too many.It's big govt conservatism.

There also is right-libertarian and left-libertarian who communitarians. Ya' know like pure ideal communism where the state has withered away but everyone shares everything as a groups and is socially liberal. I'm sure you know this though. I just thought I'd bring it up. For example, Paul is right libertarian. I'd even say he's a libertarian that also leans toward traditional conservativism (Old Right aka Paleo-Con which was once the center) because he believes in borders. Rockwell, otoh, is for the Articles of Confederation.

I've referred to my spectrum before, with no govt on the right and total on the left. I see original traditional aka paleo-conservativism in the center. I'd see all on the right of that moving toward anarchy as the degrees of libertarianism. I see everything else on the left of that center, including today's modern conservatives AND moderates. Moderates today still believe in quite a bit of big govt, don't trust markets or believe in free-trade really. They're just between modern conservatives and liberals/lefties....all of which are on the left today.

CHIEF4EVER
08-18-2007, 10:45 AM
Paul is right libertarian. I'd even say he's a libertarian that also leans toward traditional conservativism (Old Right aka Paleo-Con which was once the center) because he believes in borders.

That is why I like him. Constructionist, Conservative (in the true sense) and not Imperialist.

Simplex3
08-18-2007, 11:10 AM
Well, the government is always going to need revenue to operate so you're going to have to have some kind of tax collection methodology. I don't think the IRS has to go away, we just need to retool it and streamline it. If we had a flat tax, it would be easy to make it efficient of course.
Any form of income tax will only perpetuate the current stupidity.

Simplex3
08-18-2007, 11:12 AM
None of the above. Sales taxes are regressive and unfairly hit the lower incomes disproportionately.
Bulls**t. Read the FairTax before talking s**t. Everyone in the USA gets a check at the beginning of the month for the money they will pay in taxes for the things they will need to buy to survive.
If I was emperor of the USA, I'd abolish all sales taxes and impose mostly income and capital gains taxes. I would also make sure EVERYONE who earns ANY income, no matter how poor you are, paid something for income taxes to stop this attitude of "what the hell, just raise income taxes on them rich SOB's, it doesnt impact me!" If sales taxes are gone, even those living in poverty could pay some kind of small pittance, even if its just half a percent.
You're high. It has been proven this doesn't work. How many more decades of failure do we need before people can see this?

Simplex3
08-18-2007, 11:27 AM
I almost agree, sales tax on everything, IRS gone, and more taxes on Cigarettes, Alcohol, and gasoline as a disincentive to use them.
Who the f**k are you to decide what people should and shouldn't use?

This attitude is exactly how we got in this f**ked up position in the first place.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 11:27 AM
I don't think one can be for an aggressive pre-emptive war on the basis of the fundamentals of libertarianism though, including the idea of needing to secure oil as our interest. It's not believing in the market but govt more. Mainly though it is a violation of the non-aggression doctrine which you can't say for some other issues where they can differ. I think that's a very clear and distinctive demarcation line. As well as support for Nafta and pragmatic conservativism.( to some degree this could be, but imo not the Gingrich kind). Both of which are heavy on govt and a managed economy. Those three things together take it out of the realm. It's just too many.It's big govt conservatism.

I'm the kind of libertarian who wants to preserve an island of liberty (the US) in what I see as an ocean of totalitarianism (most of the rest of the world). To the extent that other islands embrace libertarianism, great, but I'm not counting on that. I don't see any reason why we should expect foreign powers (both state and nonstate) to respond the way citizens in a libertarian society are supposed to respond if they have no inclination toward freedom. For that reason, I don't think my position on this war has anything at all to do with the fact that I'm a moderate libertarian. My tolerance of some wartime domestic measures can be fairly criticized as non-libertarian, I suppose, but not my support for the war.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2007, 11:54 AM
It's JMO pat, but I say this not just based on your war position, but your rationals for it, some of which are imperialistic,( even if your recent clarification softens it more), including all your quotes which are from some of the most hawkish neocons, some of your other views, who you support as a "conservative" and what appears to be a nearly total nc reading list. We kinda are what we read. Ya' know just before Iraq leading nc's were labelling themselves as libertarians too. The libertarian press had a field day with it. Folks like Barnet, Boortz, Sowell and Ayn Rand Institute. It's what Justin calls "Bizarro World Libertarianism" where "up is down, and down is up."

We'll just have to agree to disagree,not judging you personally.
Ignore the written words on the image...I just like the image that Justin uses for depicting pro-war libertarians.

Adept Havelock
08-18-2007, 11:59 AM
Solomon Grundy want tax cuts too!!! :p

patteeu
08-18-2007, 12:13 PM
It's JMO pat, but I say this not just based on your war position, but your rationals for it, some of which are imperialistic,( even if your recent clarification softens it more), including all your quotes which are from some of the most hawkish neocons, some of your other views, who you support as a "conservative" and what appears to be a nearly total nc reading list. We kinda are what we read. Ya' know just before Iraq leading nc's were labelling themselves as libertarians too. The libertarian press had a field day with it. Folks like Barnet, Boortz, Sowell and Ayn Rand Institute. It's what Justin calls "Bizarro World Libertarianism" where "up is down, and down is up."

We'll just have to agree to disagree,not judging you personally.
Ignore the written words on the image...I just like the image that Justin uses for depicting pro-war libertarians.

Does the fact that you seem to be calling Neil Boortz a neocon and the fact that Boortz is a primary proponent of the FAIR tax and the fact that you also support the FAIR tax mean that you are *gasp* a Neocon too? Oh my! ;)

BigMeatballDave
08-18-2007, 05:31 PM
Alcohol, tobacco, and junkfood.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2007, 03:00 PM
Does the fact that you seem to be calling Neil Boortz a neocon and the fact that Boortz is a primary proponent of the FAIR tax and the fact that you also support the FAIR tax mean that you are *gasp* a Neocon too? Oh my! ;)

NeoCons
RINOs and
Cons
Oh my!


I don't consider the Fair Tax Libertarian. They think the IRS should be abolished and replaced with nothing. Boortz isn't libertarian on a number of issues.