Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
"When politicians say, "spread the wealth," translate that as "concentrate the power," because that is the only way they can spread the wealth. And once they get the power concentrated, they can do anything else they want to, as people have discovered -- often to their horror -- in countries around the world."
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
168 Comments:
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
-Gerry Ford
Another thought:
If the government really and truly cared about our well-being, then they'd tax us after we pay for the essentials: food, heat, electricity, clothes, etc. As it is now, the government takes it's cut before you can buy any of that stuff. In other words, the way our tax system (and every other one on the planet) is set up, the government says "our survival is more important than yours." Think about that.
That's precisely why politicians love wealth redistribution.
More power concentrated in their claws, is more power to monetize for their benefit. Redistribution to cronies.
Has it ever been otherwise?
JM,
At some point in czarist Russia (and probably elsewhere) the tribute was set at a fixed amount. Every captive of the crown had to work to pay the tax. If they didn't produce enough, they were in trouble. At least today taxes are a function of your taxable production. Thank God for small favours, eh?
Another quote from the Thomas Sowell article:
"With all the talk about people paying their "fair share" of income taxes, why do nearly half the people in this country pay no income taxes at all? Is that their "fair share"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If the government really and truly cared about our well-being, then they'd tax us after we pay for the essentials: food, heat, electricity, clothes, etc. As it is now, the government takes it's cut before you can buy any of that stuff. In other words, the way our tax system (and every other one on the planet) is set up, the government says "our survival is more important than yours." Think about that.
Actually, government would not tax you at all because taxation is theft. Your body and your labour are your own. Nobody else is entitled to them without your permission, before or after you pay for the things that you need.
then they'd tax us after we pay for the essentials: food, heat, electricity, clothes,
=================================
In liberal Massachusetts the sales tax does not apply to food, clothing, and medicine.
Actually, government would not tax you at all because taxation is theft
===============================
Taxation is not theft. It is a shared agreement to pay for necessary government.
We can disagree about how much government is necessary, and what for, but taxation is not theft.
Theft is when someone takes something with no semblance of agreement and gives nothing in return.
why do nearly half the people in this country pay no income taxes at all? Is that their "fair share"?
=================================
Because they have virtually no money to pay with.
Some are old and have paid their share for decades, some are young and have not yet accumulated enough to make much acceleration, and some simply have very little in the way of skills and ability.
Even so, if 41% pay no income taxes now, that is a huge improvement over 1913, when almost no one paid income tax that started at $20k, because the average income was only $750.
Assume you tax those 41% and you do not tax them for basic necessities, as described above, even if you take half of what is left, that amount will still be a pittance.
If the government really and truly cared about our well-being,...... the government says "our survival is more important than yours." Think about that.
===============================
Think about the incentives.
Government cares about our well beingonly to the extent it improves our lot enough to let government get bigger.
Government has no incentive to impoverish us, any more than big business has: business needs consumers and government needs taxpayers.
What makes it seem that government is not interested in our well being is that the government incentive works on a long time frame, what seems like a bad thing short term, may not be from the government perspective. Far out research for eventual defense weapons, for example.
I guess that means we"ll just let those benevolent compassionate corporate interests take care of the elderly,etc. Wow!...I wish I had thought of that
Because they have no money
"Taxation is not theft. It is a shared agreement to pay for necessary government.
We can disagree about how much government is necessary, and what for, but taxation is not theft."...
Thankfully hydra's inability to come to grips with reality is still alive and well...
The Federalist No. 41
Josh Boyaner says: "guess that means we"ll just let those benevolent compassionate corporate interests take care of the elderly,etc."...
Well you can always put your money where your opinion is...
Since when is it in corporate interests to do other than what they were formed for?
Taxation is not theft. It is a shared agreement to pay for necessary government.
Who decides what is 'necessary?' I love opera houses and football stadiums. Do you want to pay for them out of your taxes? Why is it necessary to pay women to have kids out of wedlock? Why is the National Endowment for the Arts necessary? How about the Department of Commerce? Energy? Housing? Do we really need people to set standards that regulate our shower pressure and toilet tank volumes? Why should you pay out of your taxes someone to teach about women's rights? Economics? Psychology? Philosophy? Who decides what is necessary to be taught and what gets left out? Why should you pay if you disagree?
Taxation is theft. Voluntary transactions are not.
We can disagree about how much government is necessary, and what for, but taxation is not theft.
When it isn't' given voluntarily it is theft. Why should our taxpayers go to climate change programs that fund forced sterilization in India? Or to buy tanks for the Pakistani military?
Theft is when someone takes something with no semblance of agreement and gives nothing in return.
Nobody that I know voluntarily chooses to pay taxes. They are collected by threatening those that choose not to pay them with jail time. See Wesley Snipes as a perfect example.
Failure to come to grips with reality is insisting that something is what it is not.
Stealing has two conditions. First, when someone steals your money you don’t get anything in return. Second, for it to be stealing it cannot be the case that you voluntarily give up your money. Taxation is not stealing. The first condition most certainly does not apply and there is an extremely good case to be made that the second condition doesn’t apply either.
When you pay taxes you are buying a service. Those tax dollars pay for the roads you drive on, the schools your children are educated in, the police force that protects you and your property, the military that defends you from foreign invaders, and the printed money that you use for your economic transactions. You pay your taxes because you want at least some of these services.
As a citizen of this country you are in a contract with all the other citizens of this country to contract the government to pay . We all agree to collectively provide these services we cannot efficiently afford on our own.
This contract occurs through the democratic process. We vote for those who decide who is taxed, how much they are taxed, and where those tax dollars will be spent. When a citizen violates this collective agreement by not paying taxes, there have to be consequences.
Contracts often fail when there is no enforcement. When people make agreements sometimes they are lying. Taxes are not a case of forcibly taking someone else’s stuff. That stuff is owed to society as a part of the agreement every citizen makes with the other citizens in his country.
You are not even forced to accept this contract with your fellow citizens. You can always go somewhere else. It is perfectly reasonable to debate what services should be paid for collectively and which should be paid by the individual. It is not reasonable, correct, or realistic to describe the result of these deliberations as stealing.
Such a description is devoid of reality.
Nice to see that Juandos' sole skill in argumentation still revolves around personal attack, and not much else.
Even so, if 41% pay no income taxes now, that is a huge improvement over 1913, when almost no one paid income tax that started at $20k, because the average income was only $750.
Are you stupid or just ignorant? If you adjust for inflation that $750 is like earning $90K today. Government was small in 1913 and could not raise enough money to do much damage. The income tax was used to finance a war that did about as much damage to Western civilization as the Peloponnesian War did.
Why should our taxpayers go to climate change programs that fund forced sterilization in India?
==================================
Once you pay the taxes it is no longer your money. You get your say in how it is spent at the ballot box.
Or you can look at it this way. I agree to pay for things you don't want, and you agree to pay for things I don't want.
Otherwise, There are a few million things government pays for. If you are making the argument that "your" money is distributed among all those things, then, at most, a few cents of "your" money is being spent on any one thing you don't like.
Complaining that a few cents of your money is being spent in a way you do not like is a pretty childish argument.
Besides, assume that you could put an RFID on "your" money and everyone elses money, so that enough supercomputers could assure everyone that "their" money was spent only on things they agree with.
As a fiscal and social conservative, would you really want to support the transaction costs and government size and interference that would entail?
Are you stupid or just ignorant? If you adjust for inflation that $750 is not like earning $90K today.
That was the average income in those days, today the average income is what, $43,000?
Or is it that you are claiming the average wage OUGHT to be $90k and he middle class have been falling behind?
The fact remains that a greater percentage of people pay the tax now than then: the tax base HAS been broadened, but there is still a lower bound below which it makes no sense to try to collect the money.
Nobody that I know voluntarily chooses to pay taxes.
================================
Now you know someone. I voluntarily pay taxes for governemnt services I prefer not to do without.
You may no longer make that claim, at least not honestly.
The income tax was used to finance a war that did about as much damage to Western civilization as the Peloponnesian War did.
================================
I don't like war either, but as individuals I doubt either of us could afford to defend ourselves against the Peloponesians, let alone the Central Powers.
[Taxes] are collected by threatening those that choose not to pay them with jail time.
================================
Incentives matter.
Stealing has two conditions. First, when someone steals your money you don’t get anything in return. Second, for it to be stealing it cannot be the case that you voluntarily give up your money. Taxation is not stealing. The first condition most certainly does not apply and there is an extremely good case to be made that the second condition doesn’t apply either.
What a bunch of nonsense. When we commonly use the word theft we mean the taking of the property of another person without consent. That is not what government does. It uses force or the threat of force to deprive people of a portion of their earnings. You don't think of it as theft because the government is allowed to make rules that allow it to do what others are not allowed to; steal.
I tend to be with the great American, Lysander Spooner on this issue. Because you don't read very well and understand less I will not link his book, No Treason. Instead, I will link to a great little excerpt from Jeff Riggenbach's piece on Spooner. Here you go. Too bad you will not understand.
When you pay taxes you are buying a service. Those tax dollars pay for the roads you drive on, the schools your children are educated in, the police force that protects you and your property, the military that defends you from foreign invaders, and the printed money that you use for your economic transactions. You pay your taxes because you want at least some of these services.
But I do not want to buy that service from the government. I do not want my children to go to schools that can't teach and have metal detectors at the entrences. I do not want to pay for foreign invasions. I do not want to pay for wasteful systems for the military or to arm the military of another nation. If you do then feel free to pay for those things yourself.
As a citizen of this country you are in a contract with all the other citizens of this country to contract the government to pay . We all agree to collectively provide these services we cannot efficiently afford on our own.
But I signed no contract. And since no other man may bind me by signing for me your argument does not hold up very well. If you are frightened and want to be a slave so be it. But you have no right to make slaves of others who prefer to be free.
This contract occurs through the democratic process. We vote for those who decide who is taxed, how much they are taxed, and where those tax dollars will be spent. When a citizen violates this collective agreement by not paying taxes, there have to be consequences.
But I have never voted for any of these people. And when others vote I have never seen them ask to choose which taxes should be raised and how much we should pay. Your ballot must be a hell of a lot different than the one that I see or you are talking through your arse as usual.
Contracts often fail when there is no enforcement. When people make agreements sometimes they are lying. Taxes are not a case of forcibly taking someone else’s stuff. That stuff is owed to society as a part of the agreement every citizen makes with the other citizens in his country.
Contracts are signed by the parties that engage in specific transactions. As I pointed out above, there is no contract with my signature on it.
You are not even forced to accept this contract with your fellow citizens. You can always go somewhere else. It is perfectly reasonable to debate what services should be paid for collectively and which should be paid by the individual. It is not reasonable, correct, or realistic to describe the result of these deliberations as stealing.
You would be wrong. I have every right to the property that I purchase with my own labour. You have every right to purchase the services that you want. What you do not have is the right to impose your wishes on me.
For the record, fools like you are the reason why I make a good living without much effort. It is easy for a rational person who understands the real world to live as a free man even when the rest of you choose to be slaves. The funny thing is that the life I choose is considered far more lawful than the lives you serfs tend to live.
Such a description is devoid of reality.
I do not believe you will ever be courageous or prescient enough to recognise reality as it is.
Once you pay the taxes it is no longer your money. You get your say in how it is spent at the ballot box.
Really? Which voter approved his government diverting his taxes to sterilize poor people in India? Can you show me the ballot that question was on or the debate that decided that issue?
Or is it that you are claiming the average wage OUGHT to be $90k and he middle class have been falling behind?
I do not claim to know what any meaningless average OUGHT to be. I am simply pointing out that your stance on the virtue of taxation is a bunch of crap. When the tax was first introduced the government got away with it because only the very rich would be taxed and only a small amount. Had the average voter known that the politicians wanted to tax the average wage and that the productive class would pay more than 50% in income, sales, excise, taxes they would have strung them up from the nearest lampposts.
The fact remains that a greater percentage of people pay the tax now than then: the tax base HAS been broadened, but there is still a lower bound below which it makes no sense to try to collect the money.
That is right dumdum. It began with a promise to make only the rich pay but the fools who did not object soon found themselves paying higher rates than even the rich were supposed to. And government servants became your masters. Given your ignorance one would have to say deservedly so.
Now you know someone. I voluntarily pay taxes for governemnt services I prefer not to do without.
You may no longer make that claim, at least not honestly.
Do yo mean to say that you choose to pay for Egypt's airplanes? Or that you don't mind your taxes funding art that uses dung to create an image of Jesus? That you really approve your taxes subsidising women to have children out of wedlock? Or funding gay rights parades? Do you really like the idea of paying for the pension of someone who 'retires' at 55 only to take another job with the same government department? Or to pay for pedophile teachers to stay in rubber rooms because they cannot be trusted with your kids?
If you voluntarily pay taxes for these activities than you are a bigger idiot than I thought.
I don't like war either, but as individuals I doubt either of us could afford to defend ourselves against the Peloponesians, let alone the Central Powers.
They did not attack you dumdum. And if you remember your history the election was won on a promise to stay out of the war.
juandos: "Thankfully hydra's inability to come to grips with reality is still alive and well...
The Federalist No. 41"
Thanks, juandos, you were correct to keep those Federalist Papers handy. :)
Don't worry that your comment is wasted on your target audience, it could be very helpful to other readers.
"Taxation is not theft. It is a shared agreement to pay for necessary government."
If not, then why do you seek to minimize your share? Don't you agree with everything government spends your money on?
Actually we haven't all agreed to pay for "necessary government", whatever that means.
Did you agree to fund the bombing of Libya? How about federal funding for any of these?
Actually, you were born wherever you were born, a choice made by your parents, and you haven't likely actually agreed to anything.
If you weren't forced to pay taxes, would you do so? What if you got a nice letter each year from the IRS which contained the following:
"Contributions appreciated, but not required to remain a member."
How much would you put in the return envolope? The fact that you pay some amount you may or may not like or risk prison, means you are being robbed.
If not, then you must also argue that what you get in return for your labor isn't really yours, but what the government allows you to keep.
You must also agree that you approve of the taking of other people's property by a third party.
You guys are way too excitable, and way too sure of yourselves.
Navigation errors are mostly made by people who think they know where they are and where they are going.
I'm sure other readers will find it very helpful to learn that Juandos thinks I am unable to grasp reality. I haven't seen any other comments that contribute anything.
Yes, I know about the Peloponesions, sorry you missed the point, again.
You guys are way too excitable, and way too sure of yourselves.
We are sure of the principles. And you have none.
Navigation errors are mostly made by people who think they know where they are and where they are going.
They are more likely to be made by those without a compass.
I'm sure other readers will find it very helpful to learn that Juandos thinks I am unable to grasp reality. I haven't seen any other comments that contribute anything.
LOL...You have certainly proven that you can't grasp reality.
Yes, I know about the Peloponesions, sorry you missed the point, again.
I did not miss the point. You did. Wars of aggression fought after a promise was made to avoid them have nothing to do with defence.
If you voluntarily pay taxes for these activities than you are a bigger idiot than I thought.
================================
After I pay them, they are not my taxes. If I buy a table from you, do I then get to tell you how to spend the money?
I figure I don't pay for things I don't agree with. The money I pay isn't nearly enough to pay for the things I do agree with.
As for the rest of that crap, it is an exercise in loaded arguments. I don't buy the idea that everything is open and shut, last I knew the law of diminishing returns still applies.
Wars of aggression fought after a promise was made to avoid them have nothing to do with defence.
You still don't get it, or else you are changing the subject because you have nothing to say that is on topic.
LOL...You have certainly proven that you can't grasp reality.
==============================
Nice.
Let me know when you have something to say.
"Government cares about our well beingonly to the extent it improves our lot enough to let government get bigger."
Government cannot improve the lot of productive people, but can only decrease it. Those on the receiving end of redistribution may or may not see their well being improved.
"What makes it seem that government is not interested in our well being is that the government incentive works on a long time frame, what seems like a bad thing short term, may not be from the government perspective."
The government prospective, is the perspective of individuals in government who hope to get re-elected, and improve their own well-being. For others, long term planning means long term funding.
It's amazing you believe that the individuals in government are more saintly than individuals in business. You are truly naive.
They are more likely to be made by those without a compass.
=================================
Actually, a compass is not required. A good navigaor needs no compass to reach his destination. even if he has one, the first thing he learns is not to trust it.
In fact, it is a good way to get in trouble: I'm SURE north is this way, because the (GOP, Democratic, Libertarian, Catholic, Muslim, take your pick) compass says so.
Being dead sure of yourself is the surest way to make a mistake.
"Stealing has two conditions. First, when someone steals your money you don’t get anything in return."
That's ridiculous. When someone puts a gun to your head and says: "your money or your life", you have a choice, just as you do when you pay taxes. If you chose to give your money, you get back your life. When you chose to pay taxes, you get your freedom.
What's not theft about it? Think about the definition:
- Theft: the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
"Freely given" means without coercion. You can't say there isn't coercion in either armed robbery or taxation.
It's amazing you believe that the individuals in government are more saintly than individuals in business.
=================================
It is amazing to me you insist on saying things I never said.
I don't trust anyone with an agenda. Anyon nwho insists on going in one diection will be going in the wrong one 359 times out of 360.
Government and business are both composed of people, they have different motives and different incentives.
So far, my experience is that business is more likely to try to pull a fast one or gain some cheap advantage. They ought to know better, and theory says the best and most honest businesses will triumph in the end.
In practice it seems not to work that way because a) there is a sucker born every minute so there is plenty of new food for businesses that ought to be out of work. b) the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
If you chose to give your money, you get back your life.
=================================
Maybe you do and maybe you don't. How many times have you been attacked?
It is a business deal: you want to live here, other people expect you to pay your taxes, just as they do. If you don't pay your taxes there will be consequences, just as there will be for any other legitimate bill.
If you do not like doing business here, you can take your business elsewhere. Maybe you can find someplace with no taxes and no government.
Or, you can stay here and negotiate with everyone else for whatever you think is a better deal.
But it is going to be hard to negotiate with them as long as you insist on calling an item something it isn't.
"Stealing has two conditions. First, when someone steals your money you don’t get anything in return."
That's ridiculous.
=================================
What is ridiculous about it?
Try to answer without adding an additional condition or changing the argument. Particularly one that isn't true, like getting your life back.
Here is a guy holding a gun to your head. "If you give me your wallet I will let you live"
Are you going to trust that guy more than your government? really?
At that particular moment in time, probably yes, since you have little other choice, but as a general rule, probably not.
And that guy is going to take your wallet, not 28% of it, or 11% if you ae Warren Buffet. You will get absolutely nothing in return.
At least with government you will get some things you do not like.
So,tell meagain how that is ridiculous and how like a murderous thief the government is.
The government prospective, is the perspective of individuals in government who hope to get re-elected, and improve their own well-being. For others, long term planning means long term funding.
================================
OK, we agree. Government has different incentives.
Government cannot improve the lot of productive people, but can only decrease it.
=================================
It is not doing a very good job then, since our lot seems to be getting better and better despite all the governments out there.
Look, you agree that government wants to be bigger and more powerful. How does it do that by decreasing the ability of its citizens to pay for it?
Is the analogy here that the top 1% of citizens can always accrue more wealth and power by continuously diminishing the amount remaining for the others?
Of course not. The rich want to have enough consumers so that their businessdes makes them continously more wealthy. Nothing wrong with that.
"We all agree to collectively provide these services we cannot efficiently afford on our own. "
No, we do not all agree that we want any particular service, nor do we believe that those services we DO want are most efficiently provided by government, in fact many of us believe it's just the opposite.
"When you pay taxes you are buying a service."
I am forced to pay for a service whether I want it or not, and whether it provides me any benefit. If I don't. I'll go to prison.
"Those tax dollars pay for the roads you drive on, the schools your children are educated in, the police force that protects you and your property, the military that defends you from foreign invaders, and the printed money that you use for your economic transactions."
None of which can only be provided by government, but I have no choice.
"As a citizen of this country you are in a contract with all the other citizens of this country to contract the government to pay."
I am a citizen of this country by definition, because I was born here. I didn't choose it, nor did I sign a contract or agree to anything. I haven't necessarily voted to show my preference. I was bound by government requirements before I was allowed to vote, and could lose that permission to vote if I meet certain conditions. This isn't something I have chosen. It's somerthing that has been chosen for me.
And I don't need to move somewhere else if I don't like it. I was born here, and have as much right as anyone, but haven't chosen to be ruled by others, or have my earnings taken against my will.
"This contract occurs through the democratic process. We vote for those who decide who is taxed, how much they are taxed, and where those tax dollars will be spent."
Or not. What if I don't like any of those choices and decide I don't want to play that game of voting? I have a system forced on my by others. Play the game, or have no sayso, but by playing the game, I agree it's legitimate? Is that how that works? Who decided that for me?
"When a citizen violates this collective agreement by not paying taxes, there have to be consequences."
Citizenship isn't necessary to paying taxes, and of course there have to be consequences, or people would people would make their own decisions about what services they wanted, and would voluntarily pay providers of those services.
"Contracts often fail when there is no enforcement."
That's why we desire enforcement, but it need not be provided by government.
"Taxes are not a case of forcibly taking someone else’s stuff."
I can't imagine what else to call it.
"That stuff is owed to society as a part of the agreement every citizen makes with the other citizens in his country."
Nothing is owed to society. What a bizarre notion. Do you really mean that something is owed to government because those in government say so?
"You are not even forced to accept this contract with your fellow citizens. You can always go somewhere else. It is perfectly reasonable to debate what services should be paid for collectively and which should be paid by the individual. It is not reasonable, correct, or realistic to describe the result of these deliberations as stealing."
And if I chose to accept none of the collective services but provide what I require in some other way, what then? Can I make that choice, or am I stuck with what others decide for me?
What if I chose a private method of educating my children? Do I still have to pay some amount for a service I don't want or need? And, will I still be forced to meet some arbitrary standards chosen for me by others?
What about highways? Should I pay for highways I don't use? Don't tell me about the goods I buy being delivered on public highways, as the price I pay already includes a charge for delivery.
"Even so, if 41% pay no income taxes now, that is a huge improvement over 1913, when almost no one paid income tax that started at $20k, because the average income was only $750."
Paying more taxes is an improvement? You are sick.
"Or you can look at it this way. I agree to pay for things you don't want, and you agree to pay for things I don't want."
Do you realize how stupid that sounds? What a ridiculous arrangement. Why don't we each just pay for what we DO want?
"Navigation errors are mostly made by people who think they know where they are and where they are going."
Yes, You are correct. Navigation errors are made mostly by people who navigate. Good one.
"After I pay them, they are not my taxes. If I buy a table from you, do I then get to tell you how to spend the money?"
If I force you to buy a table you had no intention of buying, would you have any complaints?
"Government and business are both composed of people, they have different motives and different incentives."
That's right, and neither is particularly interested in what I want, except that government has a monopoly on the use of force, and those in government can just take what they want, but those in business must convince me to voluntarily buy what they offer, unless they can enlist government to force me.
It's not clear why you don't appear to see any difference. Those in government certainly have different incentives, but my well-being isn't necessarily one of them.
"Now you know someone. I voluntarily pay taxes for governemnt services I prefer not to do without."
That's great! Do you claim all legitimate deductions? Do you minimize your tax liability? If you were excused from paying taxes, for whatever reason, would you keep sending a check every year for the services you receive, or would you be all right with my being forced to pay for them on your behalf?
In order to convince you, you must know the truth, which business has no incentive to give you.
That is why government uses force to demand better labels and other info.
In my view, one is potentially as bad as the other, a point we have also learned to our horror, but which sowell ignores.
"Here is a guy holding a gun to your head. "If you give me your wallet I will let you live"
Are you going to trust that guy more than your government? really?"
Well, of course. If he or she didn't intend to trade my money for my life they wouldn't give me the choice. They would just kill me, then take my wallet. Much quicker and easier. I could also refuse to choose, and see if they meant business, but the prudent thing would be to believe them.
Government does the same thing. "Give me taxes or I will put you in prison." Not quite as serious as death, but coercive nonetheless.
Apparently you didn't bother to watch the excellent Spooner video Vangel suggested. It's a classic.
The fact that government gives me something I have no use for in return for my stolen tax money isn't an improvement over the highway robber.
The thief might use my stolen money to get medical treatment for his or her ailing child, thus saving their life, for which I could then take credit.
Do I minimize my tax liability?
How would I know? How would anyone know, given our crazy tax code? If all I cared about was minimizing my tax liability, I would quit working.
My goal, like anyone else with any brains is to maximize my increase in wealth, consistent with enough cash flow to live on, and a job I don't hate.
Taxes are a pretty small part of that equation. I have yet to see any same person say, I'm not going to take that money because I'm going to pay tax on it.
That said, the contract is only that I pay taxes , same as anyone else in my circumstances. There is no requirement that I pay more than necessary to meet that goal.
Fair is fair, after all, even when you are getting screwed.
The fact that the government gives me something I have no use for isn't an improvement.
+++++++++++(+(+(((
Well, if you have no use for it, You are not using it. If you are not using it, you are not paying for it.
Is it your claim that you use nothing the government provides and receive no benefits whatsoever?
If so, then that is what you pay for. If not, then you should learn not to leave food on the table.
The goal is to maximize your take home, not to minimize your tax.
"Maybe you do and maybe you don't. How many times have you been attacked?"
I've never been robbed at gunpoint, but if I'm offered a choice of trading wallet for life, I will accept the bargain, as it's possible the gunman is a person of honor. If I assume I'm dead in any case, then it doesn't matter what I do or don't do. We take aa chance on possibly living.
"It is a business deal: you want to live here, other people expect you to pay your taxes, just as they do."
I'm not sure I can say it any more simply or clearly, but I haven't agreed to a "business deal". Someone else is forcing this deal on my.
I want to live here because i was born here, and have as much right to be here and stay here as anyone else. To suggest otherwise is to say that others can force conditions on me. Why do you think it's preferable to force a peaceful person against their will, rather than leave them alone?
"If you don't pay your taxes there will be consequences, just as there will be for any other legitimate bill."
Legitimate bills are those I have agreed to pay, as I have received something I wanted, and asked for, in return.
"If you do not like doing business here, you can take your business elsewhere. Maybe you can find someplace with no taxes and no government."
There's no reason I should have to do that. You are legitimizing others' use of force against me.
"Or, you can stay here and negotiate with everyone else for whatever you think is a better deal."
Or I can stay here and voluntarily choose what I want, and the market will supply it. No need for government at all.
"But it is going to be hard to negotiate with them as long as you insist on calling an item something it isn't."
Not at all. Not everyone refuses to understand that taxation is theft.
Well if you trust a Guy with a gun to your head more than the government, you have a different reality than I.
A more accurate description is that in the temporal moment you fear the robber more. Long term, the government will probably take more than the robber, but the key is long term.
The government, unlike the robber, has no incentive to exterminate you for the present sum in your wallet.
Since the governments incentive is long term, it does not represent the immediate threat the robber does.
If government is lucky, it may even help protect you from the robber, a service I'm sure you don't need and don't want to pay for.
"So far, my experience is that business is more likely to try to pull a fast one or gain some cheap advantage."
Everyone knows your experience is atypical, so we don't discuss it, or use it for support of anything.
"They ought to know better, and theory says the best and most honest businesses will triumph in the end."
It's not theory, it's proven fact - unless there's government involvement, then anything goes.
Those without experience can and do benefit from the experiences of others. It's especially hard these days to cheat people over an extended period of time, and most business want more than a one night stand.
You have not shown that taxation is the same as theft, and I'm not buying it.
I see pretty obvious differences, which you the salesman, are trying to gloss over.
I think it is a better deal to pay my taxes and expect you to, than for both of us to not pay, and listen to your whisper of "trust me, your life will be better".
"That said, the contract is only that I pay taxes , same as anyone else in my circumstances. There is no requirement that I pay more than necessary to meet that goal."
You didn't answer the question about being exempted from paying taxes and allowing me to pay for your government services.
What's your answer?
If you didn't make enough to pay taxes would you accept benefits I am being forced to provide for you?
Assume that your balance sheet for prior taxes and prior services is in balance.
After I pay them, they are not my taxes. If I buy a table from you, do I then get to tell you how to spend the money?
But you are not 'buying' a table. You are taking it. There is a huge difference.
I figure I don't pay for things I don't agree with. The money I pay isn't nearly enough to pay for the things I do agree with.
You really are a bigger idiot than I thought. And believe me, that is a difficult thing to be.
You still don't get it, or else you are changing the subject because you have nothing to say that is on topic.
I certainly don't "GET" your illogic. A war of aggression that was fought by a politician who ran on a promise that he would keep the country out of that war has nothing to do with defending the country. You really are a bigger idiot than I thought possible.
"In my view, one is potentially as bad as the other, a point we have also learned to our horror, but which sowell ignores."
Your view only works because you ignore the difference between the ability to use force and the lack of that ability. You don't seem to feel that you can take care of yourself, but must have others keeping you from harm.
"It is not doing a very good job then, since our lot seems to be getting better and better despite all the governments out there."
Are you playing word games, or did you really not understand my comment?
I think that you miss our simpleton's answer. It is only immoral or illegal if some politicians say it is. If a German judge says that the taking of property from Jews is acceptable then there is nothing wrong. After all the people who passed the laws were elected by those Jews. It the Tustsi leaders decide that it is all right to steal from Hutus there is nothing wrong with it. For a moral relativist there is nothing wrong on principle.
It is not hard to cheat people over an extended period of time, and it isn't even necessary. One good score and you can retire.
Sure you see the stories in the paper of people who got caught (either by the government or people who turned them on to government) but those are big stories only because they were the ones that got caught. You should see the one that got away.
Sure, there are many good, honest businesses. I am thinking of two in particular I do business with.
But there are a few others I would just as soon rip their lungs out with my bare hands.
Given a choice I mistrust government and business equally. In both cases, the enemy of my enemy is my ally.
When government and business eventually fight themselves to a stalemate, it will ne because the law of supply and demand will have been met.
At that point we will have reached the lowest Total Cost solution and we will be free to maximize our individual wealth equation without surprises ( ambushes, cheating, or fraud) from either side.
Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
No. He does not. Otherwise he would not write what he does. If you want to understand how evil is enabled all you need to do is to read our friend's postings. He thinks that he means well but his stupidity allows those who love useful idiots to gain the type of power that they should never be trusted with.
I am neither a moral relativist nor a liberal: I violently oppose zero tolerance.
Do I minimize my tax liability?
How would I know?...
You can't be this stupid, can you?
Who said anything about more taxes? Wasn't me. All I said was the law of diminishing return applies. Either increasing or decreasing taxes may result in a loss overall.
I care about minimizing Total Cost, and that is not the same as minimizing taxes, any more than minimizing cost is the same as maximizing profit.
How would I know... you can't be this stupid.
++++++++++++++
No, stupid is taking something out of context, combining it with a gratuitous insult and then patting yourself on the back as if you made a splendid argument.
I don't know if I minimized my tax bill, hundreds of accountants solve that problem wrong every year.
Besides, at some point I do not care: if I'm paying more taxes it is because I American taking more home.
Are you really so dumb that you make every business decision on whether it lowers your taxes?
And there has never been a business with the kind of power it should not be trusted with?
What you are suggesting is an absolutist doctrine, which I reject. I don't believe your way is always the right way and the other side is always wrong.
Even if I did not think you are a misguided liar who misrepresents or redefines or vilifies anything that does not support your theory and life view, the odds of you being right 100% of the time are heavily stacked against you.
Speaking of navigation, nine yachtsmen have been killed in the last week. These were skilled sailors with the best available equipment.
I'm sure they thought they knew what they were doing, too. I am sorry for their families and for their sailing companions and competitors.
If the best you can do is villify your opponent as ignorant stupid and immoral, it suggests you are unprepared to do battle and know nothing of his strengths.
My goal, like anyone else with any brains is to maximize my increase in wealth, consistent with enough cash flow to live on, and a job I don't hate.
First, given the fact that you claim to be a financial analyst I doubt that you tell your clients to pay as much in taxes as possible and to be happy with the cash flow that one can live on.
Second, a competent man in a system like that of the US can make a huge amount of money that exceeds what one needs to live on by multiples in the thousands. Such a person would not have to worry much about taxes because there are ways to reduce tax liabilities, at least considered to a working stiff in the middle class. But if you are trying to become rich enough not to worry about taxes it is difficult when the taxes are as high as they are. What you are missing is the fact that a huge government needs to confiscate as much of the income of citizens as possible. Given the fact that the lawyers of the well off write the tax code your cheerleading is adding a burden for the ordinary person.
Taxes are a pretty small part of that equation. I have yet to see any same person say, I'm not going to take that money because I'm going to pay tax on it.
But that is exactly what people like Ronald Reagan did. They would make their one movie a year and take the rest of the year off because there was no way to justify the tax load. If they wanted a nice vacation somewhere they would arrange pro bono work that provided free transport, accommodations, various free services, and an open tab.
That said, the contract is only that I pay taxes , same as anyone else in my circumstances. There is no requirement that I pay more than necessary to meet that goal.
If you are like everyone else you try to minimize your tax load. That contradicts your claims above.
Fair is fair, after all, even when you are getting screwed.
Screwed? I thought that you you said that you were happy to pay taxes. After all, someone has to pay for Egypt's F-16's.
I am neither buying a table nor taking anything, but. I know when money is no longer mine. worrying about money that is no longer mine is like fretting over the tennis ball that just went by me.
You really don't get it. The reason you don't get my illogic is that you don't want to. You will take pieces of it, twist it beyond recognition, paint it a different color, and then try to pound it into a hole you drilled twenty years ago, and then say, see it does not work: proof positive.
I get your argument. I think it is about half true, or maybe a little less, based on your evangelical fervor.
You think my argument is totally wrong, end of story, AND I'm a moron.
As you have pointed out, the elements of a deal are that both sides have trust and both sides win. Hard to make a deal with someone who wont negotiate, and calls his customer stupid.
Your claim was that government was using its superior power to wipe out all business and personal initiative, steal all that we have, and then kill us or treat us ad slaves.
At the same time you think that government, all its practitioners and anyone who supports it is incompetent and corrupt.
My observation is that if the second is true, we need not worry about the first, which history shows is not very successful anyway.
How is that a word game?
"In order to convince you, you must know the truth, which business has no incentive to give you. "
And, what is the truth?
Business has every incentive to provide me with what I perceive to be a good value in exchange for my opportunity cost. If they do, I may return for future business, and I may recommend them to others. This is almost always worth more than the one time gain from screwing me, and the potential loss of reputation.
Think brand Names. Burger King can't afford to make people sick.
"u have not shown that taxation is the same as theft, and I'm not buying it."
If taking property from people without their consent isn't theft, then nothing is, but I'm not surprised that you don't get it.
Is your property yours, or not?
"I see pretty obvious differences, which you the salesman, are trying to gloss over."
I don't care to sell you anything, just don't send your thugs to steal my property from me.
"I think it is a better deal to pay my taxes and expect you to, than for both of us to not pay, and listen to your whisper of "trust me, your life will be better"."
You believe, then, that another person can make better choices about how to spend your money than you can.
V: "I think that you miss our simpleton's answer. It is only immoral or illegal if some politicians say it is. If a German judge says that the taking of property from Jews is acceptable then there is nothing wrong. After all the people who passed the laws were elected by those Jews. It the Tustsi leaders decide that it is all right to steal from Hutus there is nothing wrong with it. For a moral relativist there is nothing wrong on principle."
You're right. As long as the supposed majority approves, then it's OK.
The mind boggles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"I am neither a moral relativist nor a liberal: I violently oppose zero tolerance."
Oh! Thank God for that!
LOL
"If the best you can do is villify your opponent as ignorant stupid and immoral, it suggests you are unprepared to do battle and know nothing of his strengths."
But what else could it be? Is impenetrable ignorance considered a strength now?
What do you think your strengths are?
And you don't appear to be have the makings of an enemy, unless that's a disguise your wearing.
Fair is fair, even when you are getting screwed.
+++++++++++++++
You don't pay much attention do you?
Your partner must think you are a ton of fun while you are getting screwed.
The facts are more or less the same for both of us, but I see the situation differently. I pay some taxes, and I get some government services. The services I get are probably worth more than I pay, because many others also pay, and we share the services. It is economy of scale, same reason I have Toyota build me a car instead of the local mechanic.
There is some waste in the process, and I get some stuff I don't want. I have never read the owners manual, don't care for the headlight repair process, and I have never used the rear seatbelts.
But other people do use those things, and they help pay for them, along with the cruise control, even if they never use it.
Overall there is a compromise between not having a car or government custom designed exactly as I please, and having one I can actually get, and pay for, even if I don't like making the payments.
Sure there is room for improvement, but you are unlikely to convince me that everything the government does is a corrupt failure.
For one thing, I would be or might have been dead several times over, except for services that ( by your reasoning) I paid for ( by my reasoning) with the cooperation of others.
These were services I never in my wildest imagination thought I would need. So when you say you don't need these things or want them, I have to consider that you do not know everything that will ever happen to you.
After three missed instrument approaches a government air traffic controller talked me down to a runway I could not see until I was fifty feet over it.
It never occurred to me that he might be corrupt and incompetent, even though I had previously heard ATC personnell goofing off on the air.
From my perspective he did a hell of a good job, when he did not have to. He could have waved me off, saying the airport was below minimums, and sent me someplace else, which may have been no better, if I got there.
Instead, he talked me in, cool, professional, and objective, with no name calling or remonstrations. Then he closed the airport.
I don't know what that cost, or how many people helped pay for it, but someday, that ATC will talk someone else down, and I wont much care what it cost me.
No doubt you will claim that story is a lie. Would you care to hear about my coast guard rescue ( and the coast guard incompetence) the rescues I made, or the time law enforcement actually captured and convicted my real life mugger, and forced him to repay what he stole?
It surprised the hell out of me when I got a check from the court, ten years later.
Or, would you prefer to hear again how the government regulators did nothing when insurors did not pay the insurance promised?
Thank God for that LOL.
================
Thank you Ron, I am glad I was finally able to post one obvious enough for you to get.
I hope you send one back some day.
As long as the supposed majority approves them, its OK
+++++++++++
BS. You never heard that from me. Proper protection of property rights(among other things) requires that government protect its minorities. Their rights are equal to any others.
But so are their obligations.
You believe then that another person can make better choices about how to spend your money.
+++++++++
Yet again, I never said that or anything like it.
I do not think my Toyota is perfect, but it is better than I could expect to ever actually get, if I designed and contracted out a personally constructed car.
What I got was the result of many compromises. It was collectively designed, if you will. Decentralized planning, but planning nonetheless. Does the CEO of Toyota get 99.9% of the credit
and profit off this?
If there were infinite resources, equally available to all, then everyone could have infinite freedom, and perfect individual responsibility, without ever having to give a whit about anyone else's rights.
In other words, the price for the world you propose, a world with no trade offs, no compromise, no cooperation, a world where diminishing return never applies: that price is infinitely high.
It is not fiscally responsible or physically achievable ( unless you plan on killing off near everyone but yourself).
The rule of business apply to government as well. Both rely on cooperation AND coercion.
You have to cooperate with your Co-workers and you have to do as the boss says. If you don't do the first your company earns less
If you don't do the second, You are fired. You can go someplace else if you can find one.
Same as government.
What you think of as business rules are universal rules, and they apply to government, same as to business.
Screw up bad enough and the stockholders will throw you out.
I don't care to sell you anything.
+++++++++(++
You are a lying salesman. You are trying to sell me on the idea that taxes are the same as stealing.
Then you say, you are stupid, don't send your thugs after me.
Sorry, no sale.
You want to build your own vehicle to your specs and pay for it yourself, go right ahead.
Just don't expect to drive your tracked urban assault vehicle on streets you never paid for with no insurance, and no drivers license.
Is your property yours or not?
Do you have infinite rights to control your property, over and above anyone else's right to their own property, or not?
"You think my argument is totally wrong, end of story, AND I'm a moron."
And you, the salesman, haven't convinced me otherwise.
"It never occurred to me that he might be corrupt and incompetent, even though I had previously heard ATC personnell goofing off on the air.
From my perspective he did a hell of a good job, when he did not have to. He could have waved me off, saying the airport was below minimums, and sent me someplace else, which may have been no better, if I got there."
And do you think that is because he was a government employee? Would a private ATC business have handled you differently?
"For one thing, I would be or might have been dead several times over, except for services that ( by your reasoning) I paid for ( by my reasoning) with the cooperation of others. "
If you have benefited from pooled risk through private insurance, something you chose to buy, then that's great story. If you benefited from a plan that I'm forced to contribute to, then not so great. The whole difference, that you refuse to understand, is free choice vs forced.
"The services I get are probably worth more than I pay, because many others also pay, and we share the services. It is economy of scale, same reason I have Toyota build me a car instead of the local mechanic.
Overall there is a compromise between not having a car or government custom designed exactly as I please, and having one I can actually get, and pay for, even if I don't like making the payments."
That pesky free choice thingy keeps popping up here. You are so close, yet you don't understand the difference. You CHOSE to buy that car, but didn't choose the government you got. Don't give me that lame business about voting.
"Sure there is room for improvement, but you are unlikely to convince me that everything the government does is a corrupt failure."
I hold out no hope of convincing you that day follows night, but what IS likely, is that if you could pick and choose the services you wanted and pay a private fee for them, you would get a closer fit than the one size fits all you get now.
You have ignored all the important questions from Vangel such as whether or not you mind buying F16s for the former Egyptian government.
"Fair is fair, even when you are getting screwed.
+++++++++++++++
You don't pay much attention do you?
Your partner must think you are a ton of fun while you are getting screwed."
You understand that was YOUR comment, right? Are you now responding to yourself?
And you were asked why you thought paying taxes equaled getting screwed, after explaining that you willingly pay them without being forced to do so.
"No doubt you will claim that story is a lie."
It doesn't matter to me whether it's true or not, it only matters that it's real in your head.
"Would you care to hear about my coast guard rescue ( and the coast guard incompetence) the rescues I made, or the time law enforcement actually captured and convicted my real life mugger, and forced him to repay what he stole?"
Actually, I'm not at all interested in your personal experiences, and I doubt that anyone else on the blog is either.
Have you noticed that most commentors refrain from burdening others with such meaningless personal drivel?
"It surprised the hell out of me when I got a check from the court, ten years later."
What isn't clear is why you think your stories are arguments in favor of government. If you suffered from incompetent coast guard treatment, you should recognize that such is to be expected from organizations that have no competition. A private coast guard would lose business to a better or cheaper competitor if they didn't perform well.
That doesn't mean that individuals in government won't sometimes shine like your favorite ATC, but the horror stories about air traffic control, and most other government agencies, are far more frequent. Think FEMA.
"You really don't get it. The reason you don't get my illogic is that you don't want to."
Acknowledging your illogic is a step in the right direction.
"As you have pointed out, the elements of a deal are that both sides have trust and both sides win. Hard to make a deal with someone who wont negotiate, and calls his customer stupid."
Negotiate what? Basic principles? You are not my customer, I respond to you for the benefit of others and for the practice in dealing with complete lack of logic.
"Thank you Ron, I am glad I was finally able to post one obvious enough for you to get.
I hope you send one back some day."
I keep trying but there seems to no basic level of understanding for you. You don't even understand what theft is.
"As long as the supposed majority approves them, its OK
+++++++++++
BS. You never heard that from me. Proper protection of property rights(among other things) requires that government protect its minorities. Their rights are equal to any others."
What about my right to keep my own property?
If it isn't a majority, then who is telling me I must pay taxes, can't have but one spouse, must get get a license to marry the person of my choice, etc. etc.?
"You believe then that another person can make better choices about how to spend your money.
+++++++++
Yet again, I never said that or anything like it."
You don't seem to understand your own comments.
You wrote that you willingly pay taxes, and think everyone else should also, which means that the money you give up is better spent by someone else. Otherwise, why wouldn't you spend it yourself?
"You are a lying salesman. You are trying to sell me on the idea that taxes are the same as stealing."
I would only be lying if I didn't believe what I said was true. It isn't difficult to convince most people that when their rightful property is taken by threat of force, it has been stolen.
Some object to the idea that taxation is theft, but they, like you, can find no reasonable arguments to refute it. Often that lame "social contract" bullshit comes up, but that has no basis in reality.
What you, or anyone else wants to spend their money on should be entirely up to them. People can and do join together for numerois common purposes, but those who don't want to be included, should not be forced to join, or have their property taken against their will.
"Do you have infinite rights to control your property, over and above anyone else's right to their own property, or not?"
I have the same right to my own property as everyone else has to their own property. What don't you understand?
I can't rightfully take your property, or hire someone else to do it for me.
What are you missing? This is so simple.
If I can't take your property, and my friends and I can't take your property, or a large gang of people can't take your property, then a majority of people can't rightfully take your property.
"What you think of as business rules are universal rules, and they apply to government, same as to business."
Rules are basic to any organization. The big difference, the one you keep missing, is that I can choose to join an organization, or a business, and can choose to unjoin. I didn't choose to join a government, and I can't chose to unjoin. Simple distinction. You keep trying to point out similarities, but that one difference is all that matters.
"You want to build your own vehicle to your specs and pay for it yourself, go right ahead.
Just don't expect to drive your tracked urban assault vehicle on streets you never paid for with no insurance, and no drivers license."
It's not clear what point you're trying to make here, but you mentioned buying a Toyota with features you don't need, like rear seatbelts. You must be aware that those are mandated by your precious government, and wouldn't be back there except for that. You should also be aware that auto makers are more than happy to comply with such mandates, as the can charge every customer for them with out providing a choice.
The other stuff that you don't want is there because many car buyers voted for those things, to an extent that it's efficient to put them in pretty much every vehicle.
If enough people vote for or against something, automakers will listen.
You did, however, vote to buy that car over all your other choices. You have no such choices with government.
"You are a lying salesman. You are trying to sell me on the idea that taxes are the same as stealing."
Don't flatter yourself. I don't expect to convince you of anything, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Your ignorance is your problem.
"In other words, the price for the world you propose, a world with no trade offs, no compromise, no cooperation, a world where diminishing return never applies: that price is infinitely high."
But I'm not advocating that at all, only the freedom to choose.
Anyone can choose to cooperate, compromise, or trade off, but they shouldn't be forced to do so.
You inability to comprehend that simple principle is truly astounding.
If you believe that most people wouldn't make good choices on their own, then you must believe that a select minority knows what the correct choices are for everyone else, and that they should be able to impose their will on everyone else.
Sure, there are many good, honest businesses. I am thinking of two in particular I do business with.
But there are a few others I would just as soon rip their lungs out with my bare hands.
If you don't trust someone why would you do business with them? And if people are not trusted by their customers how do you suppose they stay in business?
Your stupidity is starting to show more and more. You might try quitting before you fall even further behind.
Given a choice I mistrust government and business equally. In both cases, the enemy of my enemy is my ally.
Really? So your allies are anarchists now. How interesting.
When government and business eventually fight themselves to a stalemate, it will ne because the law of supply and demand will have been met.
At that point we will have reached the lowest Total Cost solution and we will be free to maximize our individual wealth equation without surprises ( ambushes, cheating, or fraud) from either side.
Given your inability to string together coherent and consistent thoughts I wonder how it is that you can get any work as a financial analyst. What kind of idiot are you really?
No, stupid is taking something out of context, combining it with a gratuitous insult and then patting yourself on the back as if you made a splendid argument.
Stupid is being totally incoherent and ignorant of the facts after years of being told your errors.
Besides, at some point I do not care: if I'm paying more taxes it is because I American taking more home.
You can take a lot more home without paying more in taxes. That is not the point because this debate is not about you or me.
The debate is about the justification of theft and the loss of liberty. Most people are having a really hard time because the government is just too big and too intrusive. This means that they pay a great deal more in taxes as well as extra costs due to mandates, fees, licenses, protectionist tariffs, unnecessary standards, etc., etc. I argue that people own their own bodies and their labour. I have no right to take from them what they earn and me and my neighbours have no right to get together and demand a share either. And what I don't have the right to do the politicians don't have the right to do. Now you argue that they have the power to legally take what they wish because they write the laws even if their laws violate natural law. In your argument Nuremberg was a legal farce because the Nazis had every legal right to kill Jews under German law. In mine there is a higher law than that of the king. You worship power and have no trouble with serfdom while I prefer freedom and asked that you mind your own business rather than try to impose your morally bankrupt ideas on everyone else at the point of a gun.
And there has never been a business with the kind of power it should not be trusted with?
Hell no. Businesses should compete against each others in a free marketplace where the consumer rules with her spending power. It is the statists that want a business/government alliance that can be used to implement their plans.
What you are suggesting is an absolutist doctrine, which I reject. I don't believe your way is always the right way and the other side is always wrong.
No. What I suggest is free markets and small governments. Without the government to give it a monopoly the Post Office could not survive. Without their links to the Treasury the GSEs could not blow up a bubble. And without a monopoly on the creation of money the Fed could not keep meddling in the economy or rob savers through inflation.
Even if I did not think you are a misguided liar who misrepresents or redefines or vilifies anything that does not support your theory and life view, the odds of you being right 100% of the time are heavily stacked against you.
I have never claimed to be 100% right in everything. There is always new information or something that we know as right that is actually wrong. But that is exactly my point. Your statism depends on good men doing what is right for the public without being corrupted by the massive power that they hold. You have no trouble with someone 'good' using the One Ring. But as Tolkien pointed out so well, Lord Acton was right. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are no angels to rule us. There are only corrupt individuals who grasp for power because they can use it to make themselves and their friends a lot richer as they rob taxpayers in the productive class. If you want to give your earnings to those individuals feel free to use the box that allows you to donate to the government as much as you can. But stop asking the rest of us to give up what we earn to those corrupt bastards because you are too scared to be freer.
If the best you can do is villify your opponent as ignorant stupid and immoral, it suggests you are unprepared to do battle and know nothing of his strengths.
Delusions are not strengths. Ignorance is not knowledge. And narrative is not logic. You think far too highly of yourself.
I am neither buying a table nor taking anything, but. I know when money is no longer mine. worrying about money that is no longer mine is like fretting over the tennis ball that just went by me.
Most people do not worry about how a thief will use the money that was stolen from them. But being sane they don't rationalize the theft as necessary or a good thing.
You think my argument is totally wrong, end of story, AND I'm a moron.
Now you are getting it.
As you have pointed out, the elements of a deal are that both sides have trust and both sides win. Hard to make a deal with someone who wont negotiate, and calls his customer stupid.
Also correct. Which is why you don't deal with people who you do not trust to provide what you want at the price you are willing to pay. But note that in the free market you have a choice to walk away. With government you don't get a say in how much is spent to imprison your kids in a 'public school' as they fall behind where they would be in a competitive system. When it takes your money you don't get to complain when it uses it to buy F-16s for Egypt or fund the bombing of Serbia or Syria.
Your claim was that government was using its superior power to wipe out all business and personal initiative, steal all that we have, and then kill us or treat us ad slaves.
That is not what I have claimed. I claim that the laws are actually written by big business, which uses the power of government to limit competition and to rob taxpayers and consumers. I also claim that taxation is theft and point to history to show just how the progressives managed to get the tax code to where it is today.
At the same time you think that government, all its practitioners and anyone who supports it is incompetent and corrupt.
Not everyone in government is stupid or corrupt. But government is stupid and corrupt. Its main priority is to protect its power and budgets regardless of how damaging its actions are to liberty.
My observation is that if the second is true, we need not worry about the first, which history shows is not very successful anyway.
Your critical thinking skills are very weak. When you rob people of their earnings and force them to pay more than they should to businesses that you are protecting those people are harmed even if the people who are in government are idiots. That does not mean that those of us who can see reality as it cannot use their laws to avoid paying much in taxes or to live as free men because that is clearly possible. But most people cannot see what is going on because most of the things that they believe are wrong. They are trapped and suffer more that they should. And when the current game is over they will put into power the type of tyrants who do a great deal of damage to the world.
Do you have infinite rights to control your property, over and above anyone else's right to their own property, or not?
Hell no. The rights to my property have nothing to do with the rights to your property. What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. My control of my property has nothing to do with your control of your property . If I build a nice new home next to your smelly garbage dump I can enjoy my home but cannot ask you to close your dump. If my home was there first you cannot build a dump unless you can figure out a way to prevent its smells, liquids, etc., from crossing over the property lines, don't make excessive noise, or do not spoil my views.
Have you noticed that most commentors refrain from burdening others with such meaningless personal drivel?
Actually, I enjoy when commentators use personal stories to help explain a complex idea more effectively. Our friend's problem is that his stories only serve to divert attention from the issues being discussed.
If my home was there first you cannot build a dump unless you can figure out a way to prevent its smells, liquids, etc.,
================================
In other words, if you get there first, you have more rights, and you can control what happens after you.
In other words, you do NOT believe in equal property rights.
Not everyone in government is stupid or corrupt.
================================
Then you agree that government has SOME value?
If my home was there first you cannot build a dump unless you can figure out a way to prevent its smells, liquids, etc.,
================================
Nice idea but nothing is ever completely contained, and everything causes some polution that crosses boundaries.
I once worked as an environmental analytical chemist. If I can detect something coming from your property onto mine at the parts per million level can I force you to stop what you are doing on your property?
use their laws to avoid paying much in taxes
================================
No one says you should pay more than required, but they are YOUR laws too, otherwise you cannot very well use them.
Its main priority is to protect its power and budgets regardless of how damaging its actions are to liberty.
===============================
But the main way it protects its budget is to make sure the people are free to make money with which to pay taxes.
That is offensive to you because protecting other peoples liberty means restricting yours. As described in your dump example, you do NOT want equal rights: you idea of liberty means you get MORE rights, and to hell with anyone else.
Then you agree that government has SOME value?
Not at all. It makes intelligent and moral people bureaucrats who have to follow stupid polices that they would not create on their own. It wastes money and tries to control and plan the economy when that is impossible.
I once worked as an environmental analytical chemist. If I can detect something coming from your property onto mine at the parts per million level can I force you to stop what you are doing on your property?
No. It has to be shown to be harmful first. There are many chemicals at the parts per million level on man properties. If you build a dump near my home and impair my view or allow smells, fumes, or runoff to cross over my boundary you have to compensate me for the damages.
But the main way it protects its budget is to make sure the people are free to make money with which to pay taxes.
The government has fined companies because they made shower heads that consumers wanted to purchase. That is not being free you idiot. In many ways Americans are even less free than the Chinese or Indians. They got that way because fools like you do not understand what freedom is and never complained when the government did more than it was permitted to do by the constitution.
Ok something has to ne shown to be harmful ( to the property of others) .
You have a lot and you want to build a house. I can show that if you build a house, it will require more govveenment services that will cost me money ( do harm to my property).
Since i got here first, I have the right to stop you from building a home essentially like mine?
You mentioned smells. There are plenty of things that smell terrible at the parts per million level.
How about noise? You want to put a firing range on your property and fire off a few thousand rounds every week.
I got here first, so I get to control what you do on your property, right?
How about views? My view is across your property and I got here first, so I can prevent you building to protect my view, right?
Look, I agree about the showers. I live on a well and Brit in the water clogs up the water saving showers. I save water, which I have plenty of but I waste shower heads. This is green stupid.
But most people are on city water. Dewdrops is billed as a % of the water bill, but, even so, your excess usage increases everyone's bill. Why do you have that right? If everyone gets none water savers and your bill goes up, they have that right?
It has to be shown to be harmful first. This is Larry's favorite. You are free to make kepone, because no one knows it is dangerous. Then new knowledge happens.
What is my recourse to protect my property after the fact?
And you the salesman have not convinced me otherwise.
+(+++++++++++++
I'm not the salesman here. We ha e the government that is. You are the one promoting major changes.
It is impossible le to plan the economy. It it is not impossible to try to protect peoples rights and property equally. That is going to change what people think they can get away with in the market, but it is not the same as controlling the market. It is no big deal for me to take a drill bit and drill out my clogged shower head. And since it harms no one else, I have the right to "repair" my own shower head.
Pretty soon, someone will sell shower heads, drill bit included.
Have to follow stupid policies that they would not create on their own.
+++++++++++++++
Who creates those policies? Like no wasteful conferences? No hookers in the presidents hotel?
As long as compensate you for the damages, I can do whatever I like? Or vice versa?
Sounds like equal protection of property rights to me.
How do we discover the price of damages to be paid to others for the exercise of our freedoms?
Sounds to me like we need a market in property damages.
Hey, I am ok with you damaging my property, as long as you pay me the going rate.
Obviously, you are not going to pay me the going rate for damages, unless you have an activity that provides enough profit to pay the bills.
That would have to be a better activity than the one I have, otherwise I would be paying you damages out of my profits.
As long AZ property rights are EQUAL, the market is still uncontrolled.
What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours, as long as you get there first? Is that your concept of liberty?
I love the third part of your post of 9:04.
You quote me, tell me my reasoning skills are weak, then you ramble off and change the subject.
I persist. If government is incompetent and corrupt, how is it able to pull off the massive conspiracy you insist exists?
And, if you concede that government is populated with at least some good people, what is it that drives an organizational behavior that is beyond hope, by your descrption. What makes you think that dynamic is any different from a corporation?
You don't get a say in how much is spent on schools? I do. It does not amount to much but it is the same as anyone else's.
Plus I decided to pull my children out of public schools: I don't have any. Pull the plug on the school bureaucracy that way.
But don't come whining to me That you have no power and no choices, and then try to convince me it is because others stole your freedom. Everyone has choices.
They just come with certain trade offs.
As a financial analyst I do not tell my clients to avoid income just because they will pay more tax. My clients are smart enough to be insulted if I made such a suggestion. I have NEVER seen one that turned down a profitable buisop on account of taxes. I am not that kind of analyst anyway. I mainly work on large, multi year projects involving thousands of people. Tax isn't the issue. The issue is wheather you can pull it off at all. If you do, you pay some tax, if you dont, you go broke and pay no tax.
Same as anybody else.
"In other words, if you get there first, you have more rights, and you can control what happens after you.
In other words, you do NOT believe in equal property rights."
How is it possible that someone as familiar as you say you are, with government abuse of property rights, doesn't understand property rights?
"Not everyone in government is stupid or corrupt.
================================
Then you agree that government has SOME value?"
That's not at all what was said.
"No one says you should pay more than required, but they are YOUR laws too, otherwise you cannot very well use them."
So if you were exempted from paying taxes, you wouldn't mind that I was forced to pay for your free services?
You didn't answer this earlier.
"That is offensive to you because protecting other peoples liberty means restricting yours. As described in your dump example, you do NOT want equal rights: you idea of liberty means you get MORE rights, and to hell with anyone else."
Not just property rights but the concept of liberty, also that you don't understand.
Rights are negative. To continue playing, you must understand the definitions used in the game.
"You have a lot and you want to build a house. I can show that if you build a house, it will require more govveenment services that will cost me money ( do harm to my property)."
You can't possibly show that, as I won't require any government services.
Sto here is the deal, as I see it. Our friend Larry G is an an environmental nazi. He believes he has TOTAL dominion over his property and you have ZERO right to pollute his place, not even at the part per trillion range, because who Joe's what cost we might discover some day?
Compared to him, you are a property rights relativist because you at least allow some damage must be proven.
Compared to him, you concede SOME limitation to property rights, and therefore to liberty.
The only question remaining is what rights and what liberty.
You do not get to decide that by yourself, unless you find a place to live by yourself.
"Dewdrops is billed as a % of the water bill, but, even so, your excess usage increases everyone's bill."
Please try again. I am not billed for dewdrops - yet. They are a free gift of nature.
Just in case this is any part of your comment, I am metered, and pay for the amount of water I use. My water usage doesn't affect other people's bills.
"How about noise? You want to put a firing range on your property and fire off a few thousand rounds every week."
Why don't you check with Coase on these questions before you ask others to supply the complete answer for you.
You can guarantee no need for government services?
How much bond will you post for your guarantee?
You promise to watch your house burn before you call the fire department?
You promise to fall out of the sky before you call an air traffic controllyourself Promise to get the bear out of your swimming pull. By yourself?
When an f18 crashes on your apartment building, you will cover all the costs?
You are going to need a big bond.
"I live on a well and Brit in the water clogs up the water saving showers."
Isn't there a local guy who could do that for you?
"As long AZ property rights are EQUAL, the market is still uncontrolled."
You have property in Arizona? Who knew?
Let me get this straight. You would self insure your life the lives of everyone in your family, all of your income and all of your accumulated wealth, if only the government would eliminate all your taxes.
I have a risk analyst You might need counseling from.
I have a lot of property, none in AZ.
but whether AZ or anyplace else, equalizing property rights has nothing to do with controlling the market. Just the opposite, in fact.
Equal protection of property rights frees the market from suspicion of fraud and theft.
Actually I do own stock on a couple of Arizona companies so maybe I could be said to have property there.
It is grit in the shower not Brit. Good joke though.
"I'm not the salesman here. We ha e the government that is. You are the one promoting major changes"
You should probably reread that comment.
"How much bond will you post for your guarantee?"
I don't need to post a bond. I'm not guaranteeing anything.
I have private insurance that covers all those problems you mentioned.
"Let me get this straight. You would self insure your life the lives of everyone in your family, all of your income and all of your accumulated wealth, if only the government would eliminate all your taxes."
I already insure the people and things, the loss of which, or whom, would cause financial loss. What do you suppose government can do for me that I'm not doing for myself?
You might consult that risk analyst yourself, so you could understand what risk is, and what to insure against. I only insure the lives of family members from whom I expect future financial benefits.
You have a lot and you want to build a house. I can show that if you build a house, it will require more govveenment services that will cost me money ( do harm to my property).
Your comment shows just how little you understand about the issues that you debate. My right to purchase anything does not violate your right to try and purchase the same thing. Rights are negative moron.
But you do have a point if you are trying to say that there should be no 'government services' because they do harm the people paying for them against their wishes.
Since i got here first, I have the right to stop you from building a home essentially like mine?
No, you do not have that right. Your rights are negative. That means that people should not be able to initiate force against you or trespass on your property. When I build my home on my lot I am doing neither. When I spill toxic waste that makes it over the property line I am guilty of trespassing and have to compensate you for the harm.
You might try reading a book some time. Locke may be a good place to start.
You mentioned smells. There are plenty of things that smell terrible at the parts per million level.
That is right. If I use chemicals that smell bad and interfere with your use of your property you have every right to sue for compensation and to stop me.
How about noise? You want to put a firing range on your property and fire off a few thousand rounds every week.
Same answer dumdum. Didn't you ever go to high school and learn anything?
I got here first, so I get to control what you do on your property, right?
No. You can only stop me from building something that would harm your property. If you look at most cities you will find a common law case hundreds of years ago when people were stopped from building blacksmith shops in quiet residential areas. None of this is new for anyone who has a bit of knowledge.
How about views? My view is across your property and I got here first, so I can prevent you building to protect my view, right?
Absolutely. There are limits to what I can build. For example, I could not put up a 50 foot fence around your property and destroy your views of the mountains.
But most people are on city water. Dewdrops is billed as a % of the water bill, but, even so, your excess usage increases everyone's bill. Why do you have that right? If everyone gets none water savers and your bill goes up, they have that right?
First, I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention dewdrops.
Second, you are confused. The government does not care about property rights when it decides to get into the services business. People should purchase water in a competitive market just like they purchase other essentials like food, clothing, and shelter. If I choose to use more water then I will pay for that use. If you use a lot less you will pay a lot less.
It has to be shown to be harmful first. This is Larry's favorite. You are free to make kepone, because no one knows it is dangerous. Then new knowledge happens.
What is my recourse to protect my property after the fact?
You can sue for compensation once the facts are known.
It is impossible le to plan the economy.
That does not stop most people from supporting big government, which tries to plan the economy.
That is going to change what people think they can get away with in the market, but it is not the same as controlling the market.
The market is just billions of transactions that take place every day. When a transaction happens it is only because both sides prefer what they get for what they give up. At the time of the transaction all parties get what they want. That does not happen when government creates a monopoly for services. If you want to renew a licence you have to wait however long it takes at the DMV. If you want to fly you have to let pedophiles touch your kids or expose them to radiation. In a competitive system there would be alternatives.
It is no big deal for me to take a drill bit and drill out my clogged shower head. And since it harms no one else, I have the right to "repair" my own shower head.
Actually, according to the legislation you can be fined or jailed for that act because you have no rights as far as the government is concerned. This is one of the reasons I gave for getting rid of the EPA and Department of Energy bureaucrats that control such programs.
Pretty soon, someone will sell shower heads, drill bit included.
If it is a company doing it above board the bureaucrats will crucify them to make an example for others. This is why our friendly neighbourhood mob guys sell decent showers in the black market.
As long as compensate you for the damages, I can do whatever I like? Or vice versa?
Sounds like equal protection of property rights to me.
No, you can't. If you try to build a garbage dump next to a subdivision the people there can get a court order to stop you. You will pay their bills and compensate them for the trouble but will not be able to use your property as you wish.
(Let me note that this argument does not allow the government to trample on property rights by allowing some companies to harm individuals by polluting or building in certain areas. Common law will protect you where legislative actions will not.)
How do we discover the price of damages to be paid to others for the exercise of our freedoms?
You are not allowed to harm others you idiot. The compensation is paid if something happens by accident. If you plan to damage others they can use the courts to stop you and will get compensation for the problems that you caused them.
Hey, I am ok with you damaging my property, as long as you pay me the going rate.
That is perfectly acceptable. If there is an agreement before the fact both parties get what they want.
Obviously, you are not going to pay me the going rate for damages, unless you have an activity that provides enough profit to pay the bills.
If I don't pay you what you want than I can't do anything to damage your property and nothing happens.
That would have to be a better activity than the one I have, otherwise I would be paying you damages out of my profits.
That is what makes a market. Over time assets wind up in the hands of those that value them more because they have a better use for them.
As long AZ property rights are EQUAL, the market is still uncontrolled.
Markets should never be 'controlled' because there is no overseer. A market is just the sum of all of the billions of voluntary transactions that happen between willing participants. Control requires the use of force that enables intervention.
What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours, as long as you get there first? Is that your concept of liberty?
No. What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. I cannot harm you and you cannot harm me. That is my concept of liberty.
I persist. If government is incompetent and corrupt, how is it able to pull off the massive conspiracy you insist exists?
Easy. The government has a monopoly on the ability to initiate force. When you have all the guns on your side competence is not a big requirement to prevail.
And, if you concede that government is populated with at least some good people, what is it that drives an organizational behavior that is beyond hope, by your descrption. What makes you think that dynamic is any different from a corporation?
It is the structure that is based on monopoly power. Read your Acton my friend. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As Tolkien shows us in his great book, the One Ring cannot be wielded for good even if it is owned by the best of men because it will always corrupt them.
You don't get a say in how much is spent on schools? I do. It does not amount to much but it is the same as anyone else's.
Nonsense. The American schools spend about twice as much per student than is required to get a decent education but produce terrible results. Try suggesting that spending should be cut by 50% and that incompetent teachers and bureaucracies should be fired and see how far you go.
Plus I decided to pull my children out of public schools: I don't have any. Pull the plug on the school bureaucracy that way.
Great. But why should you pay twice? Shouldn't the taxes that you pay for education be tied to the students rather than the schools?
But don't come whining to me That you have no power and no choices, and then try to convince me it is because others stole your freedom. Everyone has choices.
I have choices because I have money. I bought a house in a great neighbourhood with good schools and had my kids in private schools. But most people are not as rich as you and I. You are condemning them to futility with your support for big government and government monopoly on services.
As a financial analyst I do not tell my clients to avoid income just because they will pay more tax. My clients are smart enough to be insulted if I made such a suggestion. I have NEVER seen one that turned down a profitable buisop on account of taxes. I am not that kind of analyst anyway. I mainly work on large, multi year projects involving thousands of people. Tax isn't the issue. The issue is wheather you can pull it off at all. If you do, you pay some tax, if you dont, you go broke and pay no tax.
Many financial analysts tend to look after the interest of their employers or are out for themselves rather than look after the interests of the clients. Fortunately, the clients are not knowledgeable in economics and tend to overlook that they are taking real losses because they pay taxes on nominal gains that are created by a loss of purchasing power of the currency.
If you cared about your clients you would be arguing that capital gains taxes should be zero and that interest should not be taxed at all. The fact that you don't shows that you put big government before you clients. That makes you an incompetent fool in my book.
You can guarantee no need for government services?
Pay attention please. I have argued that if you want to buy services from the government you should be free to do so. I only ask that others should be able to purchase services from other sources. And that they do not have to subsidize you or that you do not have to subsidize them.
Let me get this straight. You would self insure your life the lives of everyone in your family, all of your income and all of your accumulated wealth, if only the government would eliminate all your taxes.
Where did anyone suggest that? There should be a market for any insurance that you choose to purchase. I don't need to rely on the money losing Post Office if a private company is allowed to deliver first class letters to my home. I can get the same fire or police protection for a fraction of the cost that I have to pay the municipality. I can certainly pay far less per student for education and get better results than what the government monopoly offers. My electricity provider would certainly not be spending millions on wind generation that produces power at five times the cost. It certainly would not tear down perfectly useful coal plants because of concerns about CO2 emissions.
You mi"ght try reading a book some time. Locke may be a good place to start."
And, just in case it's not clear, I'm pretty sure he means John Locke, not Sondra Locke.
H: "It has to be shown to be harmful first. This is Larry's favorite. You are free to make kepone, because no one knows it is dangerous. Then new knowledge happens.
What is my recourse to protect my property after the fact?"
V: "You can sue for compensation once the facts are known."
In addition, why do you assume I would continue doing something once it is known to be harmful?
H: "You can guarantee no need for government services?"
V: "Pay attention please. I have argued that if you want to buy services from the government you should be free to do so. I only ask that others should be able to purchase services from other sources. And that they do not have to subsidize you or that you do not have to subsidize them."
It's really hard to imagine how your friend can continue to miss such a simple concept.
Free choice and competition seem such obvious improvements over monopoly, but apparently they're not to everyone.
In addition, why do you assume I would continue doing something once it is known to be harmful?
Because he thinks that other people are just like he is.
It's really hard to imagine how your friend can continue to miss such a simple concept.
Sadly, it is not that hard. As the saying goes our friend is quite a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Post a Comment
<< Home