|
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 December 04 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 04:44 aksfjh wrote:
It's not your money. It's the government's money.
did the government make that money? and actually, if the government passed tax-cuts, then that would mean that the government has legally declared it as my money, not theirs. seriously though, without any philosophical quibbling: how is never receiving money in the first place equatable with spending something?
Didn't we have that exact same discussion already? Yes, the government made that money, literally.
|
On December 04 2012 05:47 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 03 2012 04:44 aksfjh wrote:
It's not your money. It's the government's money.
did the government make that money? and actually, if the government passed tax-cuts, then that would mean that the government has legally declared it as my money, not theirs. seriously though, without any philosophical quibbling: how is never receiving money in the first place equatable with spending something? Didn't we have that exact same discussion already? Yes, the government made that money, literally.
did the government conceive of the product? did they provide the capital? did they manufacture it and then distribute it? did they sell it?
I don't give a crap if they print the dollars, that doesn't make the fruit of my labor theirs.
|
how can you expect to discuss this without "philosophical quibbling"?
I suppose, from an entirely unphilosophical perspective, you're exactly right!
edit:
You know very well if you ask someone how much twelve is, and in putting the question you warn him, "Don't tell me, man, that twelve is twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three; for I won't accept such nonsense from you' - it was obvious to you, I imagine, that no one could respond to a person who inquired in this way. But suppose he said to you: 'What do you mean, Thrasymachus; am I not to give any of the answers you mention, not even if twelve happens to be one of those things? You are amazing. Do you want me to say something other than the truth? Or do you mean something else?" What answer would you give him?
|
The trouble is, it's not (solely) up to you to decide how much of the "fruit of your labor" should be yours. That comes with having a civilization. Actually it's pretty hard to come up with something fair here, unquestionably you cannot measure how much of what you sold is due to your clients not being sick (or dead) because of government support, due to your clients getting money from the government, due to your clients being able to travel etc. (leaving out all the ways you benefited from your government in producing whatever you produce).
Because this is impossible to measure, it appears silly to talk about fair distribution in terms of how much can be credited to you personally. A slightly more reasonable approach might be to take a system that works and don't worry too much about (this kind of) fairness.
But even if you don't want to take this approach and want to change the system, you cannot deny that right now a big part of you income must be credited to something the government did (again look only at the client side).
In my personal opinion in the sense of above we are all unfair to third world inhabitants and future generations as our standard of living is based on their suffering. Unfair to such a degree that if you have a beef with unfairness this is where you should start.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
When discussing taxes should we even be disputing what's fair and what's not? For me it seems whatever's the most practical and beneficial for society (taking into consideration the specific society's attitudes included) should dictate what tax rates should be.
|
You could say that the fruits of one's hypothetical labor should be entirely theirs, or X% theirs, whatever. But yes the distribution of incomes as it presently exists is itself a product of the political system. For some incomes (say, the CEO of a defense contractor firm, or a doctor who has a lot of Medicare patients) the political effect is both huge and obvious, while for others it may be more subtle. Any act based on the recommendations of the first statement would almost certainly result in a dramatically different distribution of incomes than the present system.
|
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers.
That's a terrible statement. That's like saying an employee didn't do anything because he is paid by his boss and the place he works in was created by construction workers paid by his boss. The government is the employee of the people. Their labor is equivalent to any other employee's labor.
|
Ah sorry, I mistook your argument to be about more than just semantics. Yeah, the tax cuts don't cost money if you so wish but every argument about them does not hinge on using the word "spending" to describe grand scale redistribution of money in one form or the other by the government (tax policy is always a form of redistributing money).
Why did you ignore the client side argument I made? Is it not the government who paid the police officer who buys your product (oh and all those military guys and all those military contractors etc. etc.)? If we are highly stingy about semantics, like you seem to wish to, the government doesn't spend any money at all (because the money is always the government's as argued before) but just redistributes it. Remember no government => no money. What is this "they" you use?
If you want to say that we should do away with the metaphysical concept of government and look at how it's run by actual people (and how the mechanisms work that a bureaucratic apparatus can influence real people to do real stuff), I'm all on your side. Unfortunately in our political climate nowadays the abstraction of government is pretty much needed to have a discussion.
|
On December 04 2012 07:04 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers. That's a terrible statement. That's like saying an employee didn't do anything because he is paid by his boss and the place he works in was created by construction workers paid by his boss. The government is the employee of the people. Their labor is equivalent to any other employee's labor.
the employee was already paid for his work, he doesn't deserve anything more. further, the government is not an employee, but is a body composed of employees. and those employees fund nothing on their own, and produce nothing on their own. the government can't go looking for recognition from tax-payers for approving the building of a road using other people's labor and other people's money.
so actually, it's the government that should be thanking me (and every other tax-payer) for the roads. not the other way around.
|
On December 04 2012 07:09 silynxer wrote:
Remember no government => no money.
well, that's not exactly true. there would be no US dollars without a US government, but that doesn't mean money necessitates a governing body.
edit: (of course, there would be no US dollars without a US economy either, not really. saying it's the government that makes all the money is inaccurate for that reason. it would be worth the paper its printed on without private investment/production)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 04 2012 07:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:04 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers. That's a terrible statement. That's like saying an employee didn't do anything because he is paid by his boss and the place he works in was created by construction workers paid by his boss. The government is the employee of the people. Their labor is equivalent to any other employee's labor. the employee was already paid for his work, he doesn't deserve anything more. further, the government is not an employee, but is a body composed of employees. and those employees fund nothing on their own, and produce nothing on their own. the government can't go looking for recognition from tax-payers for approving the building of a road using other people's labor and other people's money. so actually, it's the government that should be thanking me (and every other tax-payer) for the roads. not the other way around.
No. No one is "already" paid for their work. They are paid to do the work. An employee does not fund anything on their own either. An employee at KFC does not fund the chicken, the building, the cash registers. The only funding that goes on is the boss funding the employee and everything else.
The government is the same. They are an employee (or a conglomerate of employees) and we are their bosses. We give them money and they get stuff done and we pay them for it. If an employee at KFC can get recognition for the fruits of their labor, surely the government can as well.
|
On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers.
While conservatives in USA vehemently portrayed Obama as saying that the americans didn't build America, I promise you that nobody will believe that you build America. It is entirely philosophical how you look at taxes. If you see USA as a landmass and as the property of the government, taxes become a rent you pay for living in the society.
If you go far enough back, before USA you would see the king as the single owner of countries and everything in it. He could in varying degree let people keep some of the money, but in principle the king owned everything. Basically democracy is just another way of determining the king. Likewise president in a republic.
However you look at it, the government has some kind of right over what you earn. If you want to avoid that, you can buy your own island and make your own rules. As long as you live in a first world country, taxes are the cost of living there. If you are lucky you can still find a province or two in Africa without any taxation, but I think it is unlikely that you would like to live there.
|
On December 04 2012 07:18 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 07:04 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers. That's a terrible statement. That's like saying an employee didn't do anything because he is paid by his boss and the place he works in was created by construction workers paid by his boss. The government is the employee of the people. Their labor is equivalent to any other employee's labor. the employee was already paid for his work, he doesn't deserve anything more. further, the government is not an employee, but is a body composed of employees. and those employees fund nothing on their own, and produce nothing on their own. the government can't go looking for recognition from tax-payers for approving the building of a road using other people's labor and other people's money. so actually, it's the government that should be thanking me (and every other tax-payer) for the roads. not the other way around. No. No one is "already" paid for their work. They are paid to do the work. An employee does not fund anything on their own either. An employee at KFC does not fund the chicken, the building, the cash registers. The only funding that goes on is the boss funding the employee and everything else. The government is the same. They are an employee (or a conglomerate of employees) and we are their bosses. We give them money and they get stuff done and we pay them for it. If an employee at KFC can get recognition for the fruits of their labor, surely the government can as well.
we give them money, and they decide to approve the use of that money. that's all. they don't build the actual roads (that's construction workers), fight the wars (soldiers), or cure the sick (doctors). and any employee of KFC that literally takes a part of his KFC paycheck to pay another person to do all of his work does not deserve recognition of anything, nor does he deserve a raise. at least the KFC employee actually does the work, and doesn't just pay someone else to do it.
the government isn't even comparable to the manager of the KFC, because they don't even write the goddamn bills. they pay staffers and aids and lawyers to write the bills.
edit: lol, I am not saying that there should be no taxes. why do people always jump to that conclusion? I'm just saying that the government only deserves taxes insofar as those taxes will be spent on the projects the American people decide they want. and, unlike a king, they don't own the land.
|
I'm not much concerned with theoretical possibilities of money without governments but about the real world, where money always needs an underlying power structure, i.e., one who can issue it. This is practically always a government.
There are ways of payment in absence of such a power (for example credit systems) but they hardly constitute what we would call money. I'm willing to discuss any real world example. To give you a headsup, try to avoid examples where some government asked for taxes that were payable in this form of physical stuff.
|
On December 04 2012 07:27 silynxer wrote:
I'm not much concerned with theoretical possibilities of money without governments but about the real world, where money always needs an underlying power structure, i.e., one who can issue it. This is practically always a government.
There are ways of payment in absence of such a power (for example credit systems) but they hardly constitute what we would call money. I'm willing to discuss any real world example. To give you a headsup, try to avoid examples where some government asked for taxes that were payable in this form of physical stuff.
Money is just another form of value, and obviously value exists independently of any government. If by money you simply mean a medium for exchange, then these have also existed long before any government created one.
Here's an example if you never heard of this before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_money
I wouldn't call it a "theoretical possibility" if it has existed throughout history...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 04 2012 07:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:18 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 07:04 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers. That's a terrible statement. That's like saying an employee didn't do anything because he is paid by his boss and the place he works in was created by construction workers paid by his boss. The government is the employee of the people. Their labor is equivalent to any other employee's labor. the employee was already paid for his work, he doesn't deserve anything more. further, the government is not an employee, but is a body composed of employees. and those employees fund nothing on their own, and produce nothing on their own. the government can't go looking for recognition from tax-payers for approving the building of a road using other people's labor and other people's money. so actually, it's the government that should be thanking me (and every other tax-payer) for the roads. not the other way around. No. No one is "already" paid for their work. They are paid to do the work. An employee does not fund anything on their own either. An employee at KFC does not fund the chicken, the building, the cash registers. The only funding that goes on is the boss funding the employee and everything else. The government is the same. They are an employee (or a conglomerate of employees) and we are their bosses. We give them money and they get stuff done and we pay them for it. If an employee at KFC can get recognition for the fruits of their labor, surely the government can as well. we give them money, and they decide to approve the use of that money. that's all. they don't build the actual roads (that's construction workers), fight the wars (soldiers), or cure the sick (doctors). and any employee of KFC that literally takes a part of his KFC paycheck to pay another person to do all of his work does not deserve recognition of anything, nor does he deserve a raise. at least the KFC employee actually does the work, and doesn't just pay someone else to do it. the government isn't even comparable to the manager of the KFC, because they don't even write the goddamn bills. they pay staffers and aids and lawyers to write the bills.
The KFC example was just me showing you that just because someone does not fund something and instead receives funding for their work, it does not nullify the fruits of their labor. I suppose the more precise analogy here would be that we, the people, their bosses, are the board of directors. We hire/fire/give bonuses and or raises/etc. to the chief executives of the company and expect them to do a good job. The CEO is paid by the company/stockholders and hires people (who hire other people) to do the rest of the work. The CEO does not write the contracts, he does not sell the products, he does not build the stores. Are you still going to tell him that his job amounts to nothing, or that he does not deserve recognition?
|
If you read anthropological literature about shell money and bead money you would realize that the people who used it didn't use it as money in the sense we do (universal measure of value). What you can buy with these kind of "currencies" and what you cannot buy is pretty specific, for example most of the time you cannot buy food. If you want me to be more specific you can give me a specific example.
It's not a simple medium of exchange but a universal one. We might be talking past each other and if you feel that way you can define money in any other way you want and I'll start from there (you may even be right under your definition). Probably defining value would also be good.
|
On December 04 2012 07:33 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 07:18 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 07:04 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers. That's a terrible statement. That's like saying an employee didn't do anything because he is paid by his boss and the place he works in was created by construction workers paid by his boss. The government is the employee of the people. Their labor is equivalent to any other employee's labor. the employee was already paid for his work, he doesn't deserve anything more. further, the government is not an employee, but is a body composed of employees. and those employees fund nothing on their own, and produce nothing on their own. the government can't go looking for recognition from tax-payers for approving the building of a road using other people's labor and other people's money. so actually, it's the government that should be thanking me (and every other tax-payer) for the roads. not the other way around. No. No one is "already" paid for their work. They are paid to do the work. An employee does not fund anything on their own either. An employee at KFC does not fund the chicken, the building, the cash registers. The only funding that goes on is the boss funding the employee and everything else. The government is the same. They are an employee (or a conglomerate of employees) and we are their bosses. We give them money and they get stuff done and we pay them for it. If an employee at KFC can get recognition for the fruits of their labor, surely the government can as well. we give them money, and they decide to approve the use of that money. that's all. they don't build the actual roads (that's construction workers), fight the wars (soldiers), or cure the sick (doctors). and any employee of KFC that literally takes a part of his KFC paycheck to pay another person to do all of his work does not deserve recognition of anything, nor does he deserve a raise. at least the KFC employee actually does the work, and doesn't just pay someone else to do it. the government isn't even comparable to the manager of the KFC, because they don't even write the goddamn bills. they pay staffers and aids and lawyers to write the bills. The KFC example was just me showing you that just because someone does not fund something and instead receives funding for their work, it does not nullify the fruits of their labor. I suppose the more precise analogy here would be that we, the people, their bosses, are the board of directors. We hire/fire/give bonuses and or raises/etc. to the chief executives of the company and expect them to do a good job. The CEO is paid by the company/stockholders and hires people (who hire other people) to do the rest of the work. The CEO does not write the contracts, he does not sell the products, he does not build the stores. Are you still going to tell him that his job amounts to nothing, or that he does not deserve recognition?
the problem here is that this CEO cannot be fired (can't get rid of the government), can arbitrarily raise his own wage (tax-hikes), determines what his scope of responsibility is (legislation), and enforces all of this with an iron-fist (federal policing). at that point, I would say that the CEO doesn't deserve much recognition from the people who only tolerate him because they have no other choice.
I can give recognition to a governor or legislator who governs wisely. I cannot give recognition for someone doing a job they've chosen to do when that job is 1) easy as 123 ABC, and 2) they get paid well above their worth, and 3) they do a terrible job of it.
|
On December 04 2012 07:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:18 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 07:04 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers. That's a terrible statement. That's like saying an employee didn't do anything because he is paid by his boss and the place he works in was created by construction workers paid by his boss. The government is the employee of the people. Their labor is equivalent to any other employee's labor. the employee was already paid for his work, he doesn't deserve anything more. further, the government is not an employee, but is a body composed of employees. and those employees fund nothing on their own, and produce nothing on their own. the government can't go looking for recognition from tax-payers for approving the building of a road using other people's labor and other people's money. so actually, it's the government that should be thanking me (and every other tax-payer) for the roads. not the other way around. No. No one is "already" paid for their work. They are paid to do the work. An employee does not fund anything on their own either. An employee at KFC does not fund the chicken, the building, the cash registers. The only funding that goes on is the boss funding the employee and everything else. The government is the same. They are an employee (or a conglomerate of employees) and we are their bosses. We give them money and they get stuff done and we pay them for it. If an employee at KFC can get recognition for the fruits of their labor, surely the government can as well. we give them money, and they decide to approve the use of that money. that's all. they don't build the actual roads (that's construction workers), fight the wars (soldiers), or cure the sick (doctors). and any employee of KFC that literally takes a part of his KFC paycheck to pay another person to do all of his work does not deserve recognition of anything, nor does he deserve a raise. at least the KFC employee actually does the work, and doesn't just pay someone else to do it. the government isn't even comparable to the manager of the KFC, because they don't even write the goddamn bills. they pay staffers and aids and lawyers to write the bills. edit: lol, I am not saying that there should be no taxes. why do people always jump to that conclusion? I'm just saying that the government only deserves taxes insofar as those taxes will be spent on the projects the American people decide they want. and, unlike a king, they don't own the land.
I was trying to set up the extremes here and I did not mean to suggest that you actually would not want to pay any taxes.
As for the projects the american people want, good luck finding a single agreed upon project if it exists. Also, how do you imagine those projects to even get suggested to the president - or rather presidential candidate as it probably should be - in the first place? Too many voices and such.
As for owning the land. That is again a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes a society. If there were any other way to leave a country than geograpically it might have some relevance (actually secession is a good bet, but then we are talking state government and are more or less back to the president/king/government problem again).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
