Thread Rating:

boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
March 15th, 2010 at 11:33:21 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

So I'll just say this: what right have you to the labor of anyone at all?



Beautiful. Perfect anarchy.

Let's just say that people are born with certain advantages and disadvantages in life, whether is is a defect at birth or an environmental defect through bad parenting, living next to a steel plant, getting attacked by someone without cause. I realize that people in general (especially the well to do) think that everyone should fend for themselves and pay for every service that they receive and if they can't, too bad... you suffer.

In my particular scenario, I've worked hard to be where I am at today, but I also consider myself gifted and lucky. Just because the neighbor down the street loses their job or the kid down the street can't pick himself up because of inherent disadvantages (or even laziness) doesn't mean that they should be treated differently. They just don't have the goods or the means that I have and it isn't necessarily their fault.

That's the society I would like to live in, and I would gladly pay taxes to make that happen. There are plenty of statistics to prove that Canada's quality of life indicators are better than the States. Yes there is a penalty: Canada's tax rate is generally higher than the United States and heavily biased towards the rich, which drives wealth out of this country.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 219
  • Posts: 11248
March 15th, 2010 at 11:40:19 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed



As to the post office, it would go broke in weeks if any kind of free competition were allowed. I'll be charitable and say maybe it was needed as a part of government when transportation between cities, and even within cities, was slow, sporadic and expensive. But it's not needed now.



In fact the USPS is being run out of business where it competes. FedEx handles Parcel Post these days. Online Bill Pay and Email are killing lots of USPS business, and junk mail has been declining for years as response rates fall. Saturday Delivery will be gone in < 5 years. I can forsee the day in maybe 20 years where there is no more home delivery at all and you will have just a PO Box, either at a USPS Office or at a UPS Store type place. (Or else maybe delivery one day a week.)


Quote: boymimbo

Certainly on the health care debate I think everyone should have health care as a basic right.



Health care cannot be described as a "right." Rights are something you are born with. Health care is the result of someone else's labor. You have no more a right to health care than to walk into a farmer's field and take some food becaue you have a "right" to eat.

In the USA, most anyone can get basic health care as it is now, BTW.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1276
  • Posts: 20976
March 15th, 2010 at 11:47:51 AM permalink
My opinion is that taxes should not be paid based on earnings, but on consumption. If I had my way, we would do away with income taxes and make up the income with a value added tax, especially on energy. Thus there would be no particular casino tax. The casinos would pay plenty for the energy they consume via heating and air conditioning, not to mention for food and other consumable products. Another benefit of this approach is that it would encourage conservation, and end the billions of hours spent filling out tax returns.

Now I'm sure somebody will chime in and say that this would be a progressive tax on low earners, causing the poor and middle class to subsidize the rich. To that I would mention that Warren Buffet noted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The Social Security tax cap, and ways of redefining income as investment profits allow the wealthy to often have a lower tax rate than the middle class. So I'm not convinced that the rich wouldn't actually end up paying more.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 15th, 2010 at 12:01:14 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo


Beautiful. Perfect anarchy.



Sir, may I interest tou in a dictionary?

I went on at some lenght regarding the role fo government in enforcing the rule of law, through the use of retaliatory force, yet you ignore all that.

Quote: boymimbo

Let's just say that people are born with certain advantages and disadvantages in life, whether is is a defect at birth or an environmental defect through bad parenting, living next to a steel plant, getting attacked by someone without cause.



Sure. Take me, for example: I work at a job that requires a great deal of attention to detail, and I have no eye for detail (not the kind at work, at any rate). I have to expend a great deal more effort to overcome that aprticualr disadvantage.

I also lack manual ability. There isn't a minor repair job so simple I can't screw it up, and I mean that. But you'd be surprised what I can do when I must and I apply myself to the task. I don't claim I do well, but jusssssst well enough that it serves.

I do not claim a right to have others do my work, or even a second's worth of a mechanic's time unless I'm willing to pay for it.

Quote: boymimbo

In my particular scenario, I've worked hard to be where I am at today, but I also consider myself gifted and lucky. Just because the neighbor down the street loses their job or the kid down the street can't pick himself up because of inherent disadvantages (or even laziness) doesn't mean that they should be treated differently. They just don't have the goods or the means that I have and it isn't necessarily their fault.



People shouldn't be despised beacause there are things they can't do. But that doesn't mean they're entitled to equal treatment. I admire poeple like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Marie Curie and Issambard K. Brunnel for their inventiveness, intellignece and resourcefulness. They've earned it (and the vast fortunes some fo them amassed). I wouldn't despise a mentally retarded man for being mentally retarded, it's not his fault. But I also wouldn't admire him they way I do Edison.

As for people who are capable of doing something but chose not to out of laziness, those poeple deserve nothing but contempt.

Quote: boymimbo

That's the society I would like to live in, and I would gladly pay taxes to make that happen.



That's fair enough. Now explain to me why it would also be all right to amke everyone else pay taxes to make it happen, even if they are opposed to your ideas.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 219
  • Posts: 11248
March 15th, 2010 at 12:14:00 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

My opinion is that taxes should not be paid based on earnings, but on consumption. If I had my way, we would do away with income taxes and make up the income with a value added tax, especially on energy. Thus there would be no particular casino tax. The casinos would pay plenty for the energy they consume via heating and air conditioning, not to mention for food and other consumable products. Another benefit of this approach is that it would encourage conservation, and end the billions of hours spent filling out tax returns.

Now I'm sure somebody will chime in and say that this would be a progressive tax on low earners, causing the poor and middle class to subsidize the rich. To that I would mention that Warren Buffet noted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The Social Security tax cap, and ways of redefining income as investment profits allow the wealthy to often have a lower tax rate than the middle class. So I'm not convinced that the rich wouldn't actually end up paying more.



Actually, Wiz, I'll chime in early and say I am mostly with you. A consumption tax would be the way to go, just make sure it is paid at the end of the chain and not "hidden" like a VAT. This way everybody, even the poor, would be paying something and we wouldn't have to listen to who got and didn't get a tax cut. My caveat would be that the Constitution would need to be changed to remove the power of congress to enact an income tax as we would eventually have both a consumption and income tax.

I'd also make in an even % on all items so no favoritism.

Such a tax would capture more of the hidden economy.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
March 15th, 2010 at 12:22:22 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Quote: boymimbo


Beautiful. Perfect anarchy.



Sir, may I interest tou in a dictionary?



I was commenting on your very last comment in the post, not the remainder of your post.

Quote: Nareed

People shouldn't be despised because there are things they can't do. But that doesn't mean they're entitled to equal treatment. I admire people like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Marie Curie and Issambard K. Brunnel for their inventiveness, intelligence and resourcefulness. They've earned it (and the vast fortunes some of them amassed). I wouldn't despise a mentally retarded man for being mentally retarded, it's not his fault. But I also wouldn't admire him they way I do Edison. As for people who are capable of doing something but chose not to out of laziness, those people deserve nothing but contempt.



Agreed!

Quote: Nareed

Quote: boymimbo

That's the society I would like to live in, and I would gladly pay taxes to make that happen.



That's fair enough. Now explain to me why it would also be all right to make everyone else pay taxes to make it happen, even if they are opposed to your ideas.



Why would it be all right? I think I explained it, but in a nutshell, because I think that all people should have the right to live a basic life (food, shelter, education, healthcare) and given the opportunity to succeed despite the cards they've been dealth.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
March 15th, 2010 at 12:25:37 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: Wizard

My opinion is that taxes should not be paid based on earnings, but on consumption. If I had my way, we would do away with income taxes and make up the income with a value added tax, especially on energy. Thus there would be no particular casino tax. The casinos would pay plenty for the energy they consume via heating and air conditioning, not to mention for food and other consumable products. Another benefit of this approach is that it would encourage conservation, and end the billions of hours spent filling out tax returns.

Now I'm sure somebody will chime in and say that this would be a progressive tax on low earners, causing the poor and middle class to subsidize the rich. To that I would mention that Warren Buffet noted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The Social Security tax cap, and ways of redefining income as investment profits allow the wealthy to often have a lower tax rate than the middle class. So I'm not convinced that the rich wouldn't actually end up paying more.



Actually, Wiz, I'll chime in early and say I am mostly with you. A consumption tax would be the way to go, just make sure it is paid at the end of the chain and not "hidden" like a VAT. This way everybody, even the poor, would be paying something and we wouldn't have to listen to who got and didn't get a tax cut. My caveat would be that the Constitution would need to be changed to remove the power of congress to enact an income tax as we would eventually have both a consumption and income tax.

I'd also make in an even % on all items so no favoritism.

Such a tax would capture more of the hidden economy.



What does the Wizard think about taxes on capital (property tax?).

I also agree. The only issue then becomes tourism and competition. Because if you have a 25% tax on all forms of consumption it pushes the prices up on visitors. Perhaps you could have them get a rebate on what they spent when they leave. Canada has (had?) that with the GST (a form of VAT) where a visitor to Canada could get a rebate when they left the country.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 15th, 2010 at 12:35:21 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

I was commenting on your very last comment in the post, not the remainder of your post.



Anarchy means the lack of all government in all aspects. Rejection of the socialism in any form, including the welfare state, does not mean rejection of all government. therefore it is not anarchy.

Quote: boymimbo

Why would it be all right? I think I explained it, but in a nutshell, because I think that all people should have the right to live a basic life (food, shelter, education, healthcare) and given the opportunity to succeed despite the cards they've been dealth.



The thing is that food, shelter, education and healthcare, among many other things, are not freely obtained. They all represent the labor, time and investment of countless people. You'┐re saying, in effect, you have a right to enslave teachers, doctoros, farmers and builders, among others, because you think they should think the way you do.

Now, when I pay a doctor for his time and labor, I have a right to it. The same when I pay a contractor for a house, who pays his employees to build it. In such cases there is an exchange of value for value, money for services.

So I ask again: what right have you to someone else's labor?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1276
  • Posts: 20976
March 15th, 2010 at 12:45:18 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo


What does the Wizard think about taxes on capital (property tax?).

I also agree. The only issue then becomes tourism and competition. Because if you have a 25% tax on all forms of consumption it pushes the prices up on visitors. Perhaps you could have them get a rebate on what they spent when they leave. Canada has (had?) that with the GST (a form of VAT) where a visitor to Canada could get a rebate when they left the country.



I'm fine with property taxes on homes. Consider a house, for example. There is a variable cost to the government to supply that house with services such as power, sewer, trash removal, road access, and emergency services. So I have no problem paying my fair share for those expenses. I would oppose car registration taxes, because the state could recoup the expense of road maintenance on a tax at the gas pump. Anything to keep things simple.

I would tend to oppose international tax rebates. That only incentives people to cross borders to buy things, which is wasteful. However, if Canada lures Americans north of the border with a rebate, I would favor retaliating by giving a break to Canadians to come south.

As an aside, I've been to Canada lots of times, and every single time I forget to send in my receipts timely for my rebate. Once I sent them in a few days late, and they denied me because of it.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
March 15th, 2010 at 12:55:08 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

So I ask again: what right have you to someone else's labor?



Quote: Dictionary.com


right
ľnoun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
20. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.



Of course when you pay for something you have the right to receive the goods or services as you paid for it. I think you are talking about this "right".

Legally, in Canada, I have the right to free education up to Grade 12 (as well as heavily subsidized University) and health-care. And based on my income, I could also receive "Welfare" that provides a very basic stipend for food and shelter. So as a Canadian citizen I have the right to these things.

Are the people doing this work enslaved? No. They are getting paid out of a collective, the taxes that most of us pay. When teachers and doctors make up the decision to take up their career in Canada, they understand that they get paid by the government and that the government is collecting the money from taxpayers, so I guess they chose to be "enslaved".

Take education for example. I pay property taxes which pay for public school, but I don't have a child living at home. I pay taxes to a health care system that I have yet to use significantly in the past 20 years. I pay employment insurance to a system I hope I'll never use. I assume that part of my taxes goes to pay for the province's welfare system.

As a nation, Canada's lawmakers chose to give all of its citizens (and permanent residents, and refugees) that right so that they would be given the opportunity to have a decent quality of life. In my opinion, it is the correct and moral thing to do.

I doubt this answers your question.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

  • Jump to: