|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 09 2015 06:35 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 06:30 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2015 06:26 Chewbacca. wrote:On May 09 2015 06:23 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2015 06:21 Chewbacca. wrote:On May 09 2015 06:14 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On May 09 2015 06:10 KwarK wrote:
The majority of people in the US pay taxes voluntarily, at least on a Federal level. elaborate, please? Median US income is about 51k a year --> Contribute 17.5k to 401k and 5.5k to Traditional IRA. Your taxable income is now only 28000, thinking at this income you aren't going to be paying federal taxes. That's 50% of people who bring in income right there -- And then there are a lot of people without income raising the percentage even higher At 28000 you pay taxes on the 17700 not covered by standard deduction and exemption. You then get $1000 back from the Saver's Credit leaving you with a whopping $700 tax bill on 51k of income, 0 if married and she's not earning. Then send it through the 401k->tIRA->ROTH pipeline and it comes out tax free 5 years later with some nice investment gains tax free with it. In case my edit was missed --> Can be bringing in income tax free from investments in municipal bonds I've never understood those. Isn't the tax free nature simply priced into the bond returns so the returns are lower than their taxable equivalents? Give me VTSAX on a ROTH ladder anyday. Agreed in that I would much rather invest in many things over municipal bonds -- But the topic was getting the income while avoiding taxes so I threw it out there. Not entirely sure about the having lower rates, for the most part I'm sure it's true. Edit: Aren't most vanguard indexes pretty tax friendly so it'd be better to keep them outside an IRA and put your less tax friendly investments in the IRA? Kind of getting off US Politics now though
Nah, taxes are bread and butter politics 
|
United States42718 Posts
On May 09 2015 06:35 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 06:30 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2015 06:26 Chewbacca. wrote:On May 09 2015 06:23 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2015 06:21 Chewbacca. wrote:On May 09 2015 06:14 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On May 09 2015 06:10 KwarK wrote:
The majority of people in the US pay taxes voluntarily, at least on a Federal level. elaborate, please? Median US income is about 51k a year --> Contribute 17.5k to 401k and 5.5k to Traditional IRA. Your taxable income is now only 28000, thinking at this income you aren't going to be paying federal taxes. That's 50% of people who bring in income right there -- And then there are a lot of people without income raising the percentage even higher At 28000 you pay taxes on the 17700 not covered by standard deduction and exemption. You then get $1000 back from the Saver's Credit leaving you with a whopping $700 tax bill on 51k of income, 0 if married and she's not earning. Then send it through the 401k->tIRA->ROTH pipeline and it comes out tax free 5 years later with some nice investment gains tax free with it. In case my edit was missed --> Can be bringing in income tax free from investments in municipal bonds I've never understood those. Isn't the tax free nature simply priced into the bond returns so the returns are lower than their taxable equivalents? Give me VTSAX on a ROTH ladder anyday. Agreed in that I would much rather invest in many things over municipal bonds -- But the topic was getting the income while avoiding taxes so I threw it out there. Not entirely sure about the having lower rates, for the most part I'm sure it's true. Edit: Aren't most vanguard indexes pretty tax friendly so it'd be better to keep them outside an IRA and put your less tax friendly investments in the IRA? Kind of getting off US Politics now though
To continue the derail, I don't think they're especially more tax friendly than any other kind of investing in the stock market. If anything Vanguard is way less tax friendly because you stand a chance at making some real money with Vanguard as opposed to other options. I suppose it would depend on what you compare it to but I think it's certainly worth keeping them in the tax deferred/tax free wrapping and it has the advantage of being incredibly accessible to the layman.
To move slightly back onto my main point. When someone driving a giant truck they're making crazy payments on with a house too big for their needs and too many Apple products complains to you about their tax burden the chances are very high that if they hadn't chosen to buy all of that shit they could reduce their tax burden to zero.
|
On May 09 2015 06:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 06:35 Chewbacca. wrote:On May 09 2015 06:30 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2015 06:26 Chewbacca. wrote:On May 09 2015 06:23 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2015 06:21 Chewbacca. wrote:On May 09 2015 06:14 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On May 09 2015 06:10 KwarK wrote:
The majority of people in the US pay taxes voluntarily, at least on a Federal level. elaborate, please? Median US income is about 51k a year --> Contribute 17.5k to 401k and 5.5k to Traditional IRA. Your taxable income is now only 28000, thinking at this income you aren't going to be paying federal taxes. That's 50% of people who bring in income right there -- And then there are a lot of people without income raising the percentage even higher At 28000 you pay taxes on the 17700 not covered by standard deduction and exemption. You then get $1000 back from the Saver's Credit leaving you with a whopping $700 tax bill on 51k of income, 0 if married and she's not earning. Then send it through the 401k->tIRA->ROTH pipeline and it comes out tax free 5 years later with some nice investment gains tax free with it. In case my edit was missed --> Can be bringing in income tax free from investments in municipal bonds I've never understood those. Isn't the tax free nature simply priced into the bond returns so the returns are lower than their taxable equivalents? Give me VTSAX on a ROTH ladder anyday. Agreed in that I would much rather invest in many things over municipal bonds -- But the topic was getting the income while avoiding taxes so I threw it out there. Not entirely sure about the having lower rates, for the most part I'm sure it's true. Edit: Aren't most vanguard indexes pretty tax friendly so it'd be better to keep them outside an IRA and put your less tax friendly investments in the IRA? Kind of getting off US Politics now though To continue the derail, I don't think they're especially more tax friendly than any other kind of investing in the stock market. If anything Vanguard is way less tax friendly because you stand a chance at making some real money with Vanguard as opposed to other options. I suppose it would depend on what you compare it to but I think it's certainly worth keeping them in the tax deferred/tax free wrapping and it has the advantage of being incredibly accessible to the layman. To move slightly back onto my main point. When someone driving a giant truck they're making crazy payments on with a house too big for their needs and too many Apple products complains to you about their tax burden the chances are very high that if they hadn't chosen to buy all of that shit they could reduce their tax burden to zero.
Which to bring it closer to politics, is the confounding part. A large enough section of voters in that sub ~$80k range vote against their interests sold on a dream one day they might not have to pay those taxes they rail against.
Now there is plenty of nuance and detail within that, but the bottom line being a significant portion of those people will in fact never come close to the income they would need in order to pay the taxes they are against (with smart accounting) yet the notion of them having to pay them is near the core of why many oppose them in the first place.
The estate 'death' tax is a great example. Talk to a random conservative on the street about it. They'll readily be able to repeat wealthy people's prepared talking points as if they are speaking about themselves, but ask them how much their estate would need to be worth for it to have an impact and how close/far away they are from that value, and a significant portion of them will be clueless.
|
People could be opposed to higher taxes on higher income earners while at the same time thinking it won't benefit them for sole reason of not agreeing with redistribution.
|
On May 09 2015 08:28 Chewbacca. wrote:
People could be opposed to higher taxes on higher income earners while at the same time thinking it won't benefit them for sole reason of not agreeing with redistribution.
I agree and I don't mean to dismiss those people. But as with millitron it's almost always framed as "I don't want to/shouldn't have to pay X" It's far more rare for it to be framed in the generic sense.
"Why should I have to pay for it though? They want the IUD, they should be the ones paying."
"I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD."
The question is whether in minds like his whether he really is paying for police or not. He might say he was just using it rhetorically but I've found in my personal interactions they mean it like they say it. When they say "I pay for police..." they are actually thinking they themselves pay, even though that obviously isn't the case.
There is a huge disconnect between who pays what and where it goes in this country and it isn't limited to one party or another. This is just an example of where people on the right construct an idea of who is paying what. It's not uncommon for people on the left to complain about tax money going to corporations as if it was actually their money too, when they don't pay taxes.
|
President Barack Obama mounted his latest defense of the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal Friday at the Nike World Headquarters, the sprawling Oregon campus of the sporting goods giant.
Many critics questioned why Obama would make the case for the massive Pacific trade pact at one of America’s most infamous outsourcers. Nike says it employs 26,000 people in the U.S., but it also works with an estimated one million contract workers abroad. Over 95 percent of Nike footwear is manufactured in Vietnam, China and Indonesia. Vietnam, which is a party to the TPP negotiations, is home to about one-third of Nike’s contract workers, according to the Oregonian.
But when Nike CEO Mark Parker took the stage in Nike’s Federer Platz near the Portland suburb of Beaverton to introduce the president, the choice of venue became clear: Parker promised that if the TPP passed, Nike would directly create 10,000 new jobs in the United States, and indirectly generate 40,000 U.S. jobs, when factoring the impact on Nike’s U.S. suppliers.
“I’m proud to say that if the TPP is ratified that Nike will accelerate our efforts to bring advanced manufacturing to the United States,” Parker said. “The future of Nike and this country depends not only on what we make, but how we make it. That’s why we support President Obama’s hard work on trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”
The company pointed in a statement to tariff relief as the aspect of the TPP that would push them to enlarge their manufacturing footprint.
"Footwear tariff relief would allow Nike to accelerate development of new advanced manufacturing methods and a domestic supply chain to support U.S. based manufacturing," the statement said.
Source
|
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people".
|
maybe you should stop making big mac analogies
|
On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people".
Maybe just maybe read about structural unemployment: if it exists at all, there needs to be redistribution, as not everyone can earn a living.
|
On May 09 2015 04:29 Danglars wrote:
The pop psych gurus are at it again. No compassion for the 'enemy,' just the usual label and attack. It's almost comical how quickly the guns come out when you're not a privileged victim group or bleeding heart lib.
Hope you're able to find some work, Mill, while looking for that job. Whether it's a move or other avenues in job skills and education, all the best.
No, this one's a special case. Again, as others have stated, if Millitron is genuinely disabled most people probably wouldn't have a problem with him receiving disability.
It's just the fact that he mercilessly rails against individuals who "suck on the teat of the welfare state". Makes people want to point out the obvious hypocrisy and sheer magnitude of cognitive dissonance necessary for someone to take a position like that while in a position like his. I mean, I think he's even gone as far to say that people should be left to die/starve in the streets, although I might be remembering that incorrectly.
|
On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people".
I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources.
Making Necessity into the tyrant of millions or billions of people to protect the private property of a few is an abomination. Enshrining "freedom from other people" as the highest good makes freedom a luxury good that only a privileged few possess. Freedom rightly construed, the true end of Man, is "the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole. Freedom is the first and indispensable condition which the possibility of such a development presupposes." Capitalism is not a morally just social or economic system for running a 21st century society, when we, collectively, have the material wealth to free masses of people from Necessity. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and we are on course to waste 6 or 7 billion this generation.
|
On May 09 2015 09:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President Barack Obama mounted his latest defense of the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal Friday at the Nike World Headquarters, the sprawling Oregon campus of the sporting goods giant.
Many critics questioned why Obama would make the case for the massive Pacific trade pact at one of America’s most infamous outsourcers. Nike says it employs 26,000 people in the U.S., but it also works with an estimated one million contract workers abroad. Over 95 percent of Nike footwear is manufactured in Vietnam, China and Indonesia. Vietnam, which is a party to the TPP negotiations, is home to about one-third of Nike’s contract workers, according to the Oregonian.
But when Nike CEO Mark Parker took the stage in Nike’s Federer Platz near the Portland suburb of Beaverton to introduce the president, the choice of venue became clear: Parker promised that if the TPP passed, Nike would directly create 10,000 new jobs in the United States, and indirectly generate 40,000 U.S. jobs, when factoring the impact on Nike’s U.S. suppliers.
“I’m proud to say that if the TPP is ratified that Nike will accelerate our efforts to bring advanced manufacturing to the United States,” Parker said. “The future of Nike and this country depends not only on what we make, but how we make it. That’s why we support President Obama’s hard work on trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”
The company pointed in a statement to tariff relief as the aspect of the TPP that would push them to enlarge their manufacturing footprint.
"Footwear tariff relief would allow Nike to accelerate development of new advanced manufacturing methods and a domestic supply chain to support U.S. based manufacturing," the statement said. Source There really shouldn't be any problem speaking at Nike. This is just garbage reporting.
|
On May 09 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people". I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources. Making Necessity into the tyrant of millions or billions of people to protect the private property of a few is an abomination. Enshrining "freedom from other people" as the highest good makes freedom a luxury good that only a privileged few possess. Freedom rightly construed, the true end of Man, is "the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole. Freedom is the first and indispensable condition which the possibility of such a development presupposes." Capitalism is not a morally just social or economic system for running a 21st century society, when we, collectively, have the material wealth to free masses of people from Necessity. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and we are on course to waste 6 or 7 billion this generation. Watch how quickly that material wealth dries up when you stop protecting "the private property of a few." You end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg, falling back on collective misery and forgetting that at least now nobody has the luxury goods of the past and the wealth gap is close to nil.
I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources.
Luckily for you, him "inflicting his will" is limited by the other mass of people's property rights! So while they're enjoying poverty in the US with a lifestyle standard unheard of in large swaths of Africa and Asia, they're insulated from a universal tyrannical will. You might be thinking of the government, though. They're known for inflicting their will with legislation/executive orders backed by the compulsory force of policy departments, agencies, and marshals.
You're welcome to try again for a utopian state with compassionate redistribution of resources that governs any non-homogeneous population. Watch what it really means to waste terrible minds who can't reap the fruits of their labor.
|
On May 09 2015 12:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people". I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources. Making Necessity into the tyrant of millions or billions of people to protect the private property of a few is an abomination. Enshrining "freedom from other people" as the highest good makes freedom a luxury good that only a privileged few possess. Freedom rightly construed, the true end of Man, is "the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole. Freedom is the first and indispensable condition which the possibility of such a development presupposes." Capitalism is not a morally just social or economic system for running a 21st century society, when we, collectively, have the material wealth to free masses of people from Necessity. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and we are on course to waste 6 or 7 billion this generation. Watch how quickly that material wealth dries up when you stop protecting "the private property of a few." You end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg, falling back on collective misery and forgetting that at least now nobody has the luxury goods of the past and the wealth gap is close to nil. Show nested quote +
I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources.
Luckily for you, him "inflicting his will" is limited by the other mass of people's property rights! So while they're enjoying poverty in the US with a lifestyle standard unheard of in large swaths of Africa and Asia, they're insulated from a universal tyrannical will. You might be thinking of the government, though. They're known for inflicting their will with legislation/executive orders backed by the compulsory force of policy departments, agencies, and marshals. You're welcome to try again for a utopian state with compassionate redistribution of resources that governs any non-homogeneous population. Watch what it really means to waste terrible minds who can't reap the fruits of their labor.
I dunno if you can make that argument. Like what society has truly had that (outside of the farce of several communist states where power and property still ended up monopolized). Human societies have always had a minority of the population controlling the majority of property and power unless you want to go back to the earliest stages of modern humans. Seems like your basically arguing that humans are too big of greedy assholes to ever put into place a system that works. Though I do agree the "Fuck You Got Mine" seems to be a central theme of our species.
|
On May 09 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people". I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources.
Isn't that just a description of government?
|
On May 09 2015 12:50 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people". I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources. Isn't that just a description of government?
Any authority has the burden of proving its legitimacy. It would not be a description of a government that governs through the consent of the governed, such as a democracy.
|
On May 09 2015 12:46 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 12:35 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people". I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources. Making Necessity into the tyrant of millions or billions of people to protect the private property of a few is an abomination. Enshrining "freedom from other people" as the highest good makes freedom a luxury good that only a privileged few possess. Freedom rightly construed, the true end of Man, is "the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole. Freedom is the first and indispensable condition which the possibility of such a development presupposes." Capitalism is not a morally just social or economic system for running a 21st century society, when we, collectively, have the material wealth to free masses of people from Necessity. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and we are on course to waste 6 or 7 billion this generation. Watch how quickly that material wealth dries up when you stop protecting "the private property of a few." You end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg, falling back on collective misery and forgetting that at least now nobody has the luxury goods of the past and the wealth gap is close to nil.
I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources.
Luckily for you, him "inflicting his will" is limited by the other mass of people's property rights! So while they're enjoying poverty in the US with a lifestyle standard unheard of in large swaths of Africa and Asia, they're insulated from a universal tyrannical will. You might be thinking of the government, though. They're known for inflicting their will with legislation/executive orders backed by the compulsory force of policy departments, agencies, and marshals. You're welcome to try again for a utopian state with compassionate redistribution of resources that governs any non-homogeneous population. Watch what it really means to waste terrible minds who can't reap the fruits of their labor. I dunno if you can make that argument. Like what society has truly had that (outside of the farce of several communist states where power and property still ended up monopolized). Human societies have always had a minority of the population controlling the majority of property and power unless you want to go back to the earliest stages of modern humans. Seems like your basically arguing that humans are too big of greedy assholes to ever put into place a system that works. Though I do agree the "Fuck You Got Mine" seems to be a central theme of our species.
Of course he can't make that argument in good faith. He's not a serious person. He's so worried about an oligarchic government that he doesn't even see, let alone comprehend, private tyranny.
|
On May 09 2015 14:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 12:50 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people". I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources. Isn't that just a description of government? Any authority has the burden of proving its legitimacy. It would not be a description of a government that governs through the consent of the governed, such as a democracy.
Well, in one case it is the result of 50%+1 people voting for an entity, the other is a case of those same people giving that entity enough resources through some sort of voluntary interaction, and then that entity exploiting the size of its fortune to become a pseudo-governmental entity. I think the latter is actually fairly implausible because of the sheer amount of wealth you would have to initially amass in order to be able to assemble a large enough police force and bureaucracy to extort money from the populace.
Most kings/despots came from the other direction, they had enough force assembled to become rich.
|
On May 09 2015 14:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 14:37 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2015 12:50 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people". I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources. Isn't that just a description of government? Any authority has the burden of proving its legitimacy. It would not be a description of a government that governs through the consent of the governed, such as a democracy. Well, in one case it is the result of 50%+1 people voting for an entity, the other is a case of those same people giving that entity enough resources through some sort of voluntary interaction, and then that entity exploiting the size of its fortune to become a pseudo-governmental entity. I think the latter is actually fairly implausible because of the sheer amount of wealth you would have to initially amass in order to be able to assemble a large enough police force and bureaucracy to extort money from the populace. Most kings/despots came from the other direction, they had enough force assembled to become rich.
That's an oversimplification, wealth and the assembly of an army often went hand in hand, the history of Rome or ancient Greece has plenty of examples. And the assembly of an army depended on "voluntary interactions", too. Do you think the loyalty of Caesar's legionaries was somehow forced?
|
On May 09 2015 14:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 14:37 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2015 12:50 cLutZ wrote:On May 09 2015 10:20 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2015 09:26 Wolfstan wrote:
I always assume I'm in the minority when I ideologically believe that taxes are meant to pay for services on a society-wide scale. Might be an over simplification but I frame it like buying a Big Mac. Some on the right complain they want too much money for it(lower tax voters), some ask if a Big Mac should be that expensive(cut spending voters). I never could fit how the left sees taxes as a redistribution tool or wants someone else to pay for their Big Mac into my model of the taxman.
I always facepalm when the left asks why one could oppose the mob inflicting their will on "other people". Are you one of those "other people" or are you one who doesn't see self interest in taking from those "other people". I always facepalm when the right asks why one would oppose the guy who owns all the resources inflicting his will on the mass of people born without any resources. Isn't that just a description of government? Any authority has the burden of proving its legitimacy. It would not be a description of a government that governs through the consent of the governed, such as a democracy. Well, in one case it is the result of 50%+1 people voting for an entity, the other is a case of those same people giving that entity enough resources through some sort of voluntary interaction, and then that entity exploiting the size of its fortune to become a pseudo-governmental entity. I think the latter is actually fairly implausible because of the sheer amount of wealth you would have to initially amass in order to be able to assemble a large enough police force and bureaucracy to extort money from the populace. Most kings/despots came from the other direction, they had enough force assembled to become rich.
What are you even talking about? Some fictional universe where everyone starts with an equal amount of resources at t=0? Are you just complaining about the nature of democracy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
