Good grief, people.

David, you’re a moron.

To Greg A in comment 39, I wish I had the time to respond to you, but I’ve spent WAY too much time thinking about philosophy this past 3 days Maybe I should quit this grad school physics lark and jump ship to philosophy??! Anybody willing to write a letter of recommendation…???….I didn’t think so!

You are right. It does contradict my basic principles and my logic. I am advocating theft. If I truly had faith in human beings I would accept the following: … … And to be frank, I’m somewhat ashamed for that. I am violating my own principles. I am defaulting to the next best alternative that, at best, preserves the spirit of what I have said above. In reality, however, I have given up.

Some would draw the obvious lesson that any political philosphy, which leads inexorably to the logical conclusion that even the most rudimentary forms of government are illegitimate, is a worthless political philosophy. And they would look about for some firmer foundation on which to base their political beliefs.

My experience with hardcore Randians is that they are often not so-easily cured. The usual prescribed treatment — healthy doses of Locke, Rousseau, Mill, …, ending up, usually, with Rawls — is often ineffective.

Good luck!

How to not complain about taxes: I, II, III, IV

You are right. It does contradict my basic principles and my logic. I am advocating theft. If I truly had faith in human beings I would accept the following: Abolish all taxes. Allow the free market to conduct the affairs of men. A free market is a free market because men enter entirely volitional contracts with one another with the end of increasing their own wealth. Those who would benefit the most from such a system are the most productive. They would, no doubt, become wealthy. It is in the interest of these productive, wealthy men to ensure that contracts are not forced upon them by other men. Therefore these productive, wealthy men have a vested interest in an independent body to oversee transactions and would therefore contribute most to such a legal system of self-government and judiciary. How could a society function if every man had is own militia enforcing their contracts under threat of force? It is precisely this type of erratic, irrational individual with whom the productive man cannot conduct his affairs. Say every man had his own militia. What happens? The man with the biggest militia will win, every time. What sort of incentive is that for the rest of men to produce? It is no incentive. It is stalemate. Stagnation. Socialism. Communism. Dictatorship. Death.

So do I think that this will work? Namely do I think that the abolition of taxes and a reliance on wealthy, productive, rational men, in my own words “to oversee transactions and therefore contribute most to such a system.”. No at this point, I don’t. And to be frank, I’m somewhat ashamed for that. I am violating my own principles. I am defaulting to the next best alternative that, at best, preserves the spirit of what I have said above. In reality, however, I have given up.

Jacques said:
“And, by what leap of illogic, do you conclude that the amount he should pay scales linearly with his income?”My reply:
I attempted to answer that in the subsequent sentences folllowing the passage on which you have quoted me.

No, you didn’t. You asserted (rather unconvincingly, I might add) that the amount should rise with rising income level. You did not justify why it should rise precisely linearly with income, rather than faster than linear (or, for that matter, slower than linear).

A progressive tax system is one in which the tax burden rises faster than linearly with income. If you’re resolutely opposed to the very idea of progressive taxation, you’d better have an argument why the tax burden should not rise faster than linearly.

How about slower than linear or, for that matter, flat (independent of income, as I suggested earlier)?

So far, all you’ve done is repeat that linear is “fair” and faster-than-linear is “unfair.”

No-one can opt-out. THAT is not fair.

Why? If the only function of government (by your account) is to enforce property rights, and I can enforce mine without its aid, why should I be forced to paid for something I don’t need? That, by your own logic, is theft.

My reply:
I attempted to answer that in the subsequent sentences folllowing the passage on which you have quoted me.

You said:
“For that matter, if protecting his property rights is the only function of government, why shouldn’t he be able to ‘opt-out’, pay nothing in taxes, and hire a private militia with the savings? That would be more cost-effective for many a rich man.”

My reply:
I abhor anarchy as defined here: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Anarchy
There must be a rule of law by which people can live and have the opportunity to be happy and attempt to fulfill their potential. Every man (and woman:)) should pay a low, flat, tax to an independent body called “the government” with a cooly unemotional, scientific, constitution-bound judiciary as it’s enforcer-in-chief. No-one can opt-out. THAT is not fair.

I ask you: who has the most to lose at the hands of a thief? The productive man. It is the productive man who is in greatest jeopardy from foreign invasion, and from “sponging” fellow citizens. He should pay more as he has the most to lose by irrational, emotional pleas for “equality”, by foreign invasion and general unfairness. But he should pay more in accordance with his productivity.

And, by what leap of illogic, do you conclude that the amount he should pay scales linearly with his income?

For that matter, if protecting his property rights is the only function of government, why shouldn’t he be able to ‘opt-out’, pay nothing in taxes, and hire a private militia with the savings? That would be more cost-effective for many a rich man.

I ask you: who has the most to lose at the hands of a thief? The productive man. It is the productive man who is in greatest jeopardy from foreign invasion, and from “sponging” fellow citizens. He should pay more as he has the most to lose by irrational, emotional pleas for “equality”, by foreign invasion and general unfairness. But he should pay more in accordance with his productivity. The best, most unemotional and scientific measure we have of a man’s productivity is his wealth. It is this we should use as the device for accessing how productive he is and therefore much he should pay. A flat tax (where I am using the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax) taxes a man in proportion to his productiveness. It does not penalize him for that productivity. You might say well say a man earns $100,000 a year and pays $10,000 in tax. And then a second man earns $1,000,000 a year and pays $100,000 in tax. How do you know that the second man needs exactly 10 times as much protection? Maybe he needs 15 times as much protection and should pay $150,000 in tax? But the man who is more productive has already benefitted society greatly by virtue of his productiveness. He has already contributed to the $100,000 earned by the first man. He has already paid a tax. Who is to say the second man should not have earned $1,500,000 instead? Maybe there is some complictated economic formula for computing how much more a productive man needs protection from his government but I am not aware of it. Besides, people don’t use this criterion as a formula for computing how much tax he is obliged to pay. They aren’t interested in how much protection the productive, able man needs. They aren’t concerned with his property rights. On the contrary they are concerned with aiding the unproductive, uncreative, undynamic, “unlucky” man. What sort of warped logic is this?

If one wants all kinds of tax cuts, you will have to destroy the social programs. There is no free lunch. Be upfront about it, don’t go about doing it by stealth (by heading the country into bankruptcy).

It is amazing how, despite US having the finest economists, the majority believe in the “get rich quick” type of scams. People want social security (no politician who openly wants to destroy it will be elected, even in the “Red States”) and yet loathe government.

But…but…. I thought all *enlightened* people are not supposed to act only in their self-interest?

If someone works hard/has talent/is ambitious/ they more likely than not will earn more money. The question therefore is: do we penalize them for that?, namely, relative to everyone else, do we in effect reprimand them for being successful by taking away an extra percentage of their money?

How sad that you would compromise your principles so easily!

Why a flat percentage of income? Why should a rich man be obliged to pay more in taxes, just because his annual income is 1000 that of someone at the poverty line? Where’s the justice in that? It’s absurd, given your priors, that a rich man should be asked to pay more, just because he is rich.

No, if you were consistent in your beliefs, you would demand, not a flat percentage levy, but an actual flat tax: a $10,000/year tax on every individual over the age of 18, whatever their income level.

And, yeah, if some poor deadbeat can’t pay, it’s off to Debtors’ Prison with him!

Taxing the wealthy doesn’t penalize them for their success. Rather it recognizes that a) the value of the second $100K isn’t as large as the first $100K and b) people who have benefited more from the common public goods (public schools, public roads, law enforcement, public utilities, etc) should be on the line for more of the money that provides those goods. The myth of the self-made man pulling himself up with his own bootstraps is exactly that. No one succeeds completely independent of their circumstance.

You said:

“Why not help out the hard working family who wants to pass on the house, business, or farm? Why not simply raise the minimum taxable amount to something which separates the truly wealthly from the rest? We would need to see the numbers to see what is reasonable, but I can imagine something like $5M, instead of $1.5M would go a long ways. I think there is merit in reforming estate tax laws.”

My response:
I’m glad you agree that there should be some reform. But who are you to judge, or for that matter who is anyone to judge where that line should be? There is nothing reasonable in taking extra money from someone just because they’re worth an extra few hundred million? Sure, they “don’t notice” the effects of your taking their money but the principal remains, namely: you have decided as a person to accept that you and the public (the government) should take it upon yourselves to decree (under threat of force) unto the wealthy person that it is right and just that you (the government/the public) would be better positioned then the owner of that wealth to spend that wealth.

I just can’t get my head around why this is reasonable?

Ok. You said:

“Progressive taxation isn’t “my” idea. But, it figures that, given your
belief in the illegitimacy of government, you wouldn’t be in favour of
progressive taxation either.”

My response is:

I know it’s not your idea. The “your” in my statement is perhaps more
appropriately replaced with “the”.

I am in favour of a low, flat tax.

(this point also addressed to Greg A from comment 13)
The point on government legitimacy would take me too long to answer, sorry. Briefly I do believe in government, but a “small” one. I hope you’ll excuse my
brevity here. I know I was the one who brought it up..sorry. I’m sure many of you have read them but I recommend Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” or Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” for a better take on where I’m coming from. They are wonderful pieces of economic/political literature (and so short (usually a good sign, right?) )

You said:
“Taxation is theft, eh? That explains the “point of a gun” phraseology.”

My response is:
If someone works hard/has talent/is ambitious/ they more likely than not
will earn more money. The question therefore is: do we penalize them
for that?, namely, relative to everyone else, do we in effect reprimand them
for being successful by taking away an extra percentage of their money?
I say: no we should not. Another question might be: do we reward them for their productive endeavours? My answer again is: no. They’ve already been rewarded! We, the beneficiaries of taxing more productive people than ourselves are in effect “thieving” from the more productive person. So in answering your question “Taxation is theft, eh?”, I would say “uneven taxation is
theft, yup.”

You said:
“You don’t see even the teensiest bit of irony in the juxtaposition of
those two sentences?”

My response is:
Maybe, sorry, I’m not really that good on irony. Excuse my naivety What is your point?