For my Libertarian friends

The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: Let's say 50% or more of Americans said "I'm done paying taxes because our government is incompetent and squanders our money."  What do you say should happen to them? Does your constitution give your elected representatives the power to levy taxes? If yes - the 50% nay sayers would have violated their own constitution and thus civil laws? (I have no idea what punitive or contingency measures you have in place for such an eventuality) If no - your elected representatives would be voted out of power and there would be one huge sh*it fight as to see who owns whatever public sector assets you might have. Its either anarchy or maybe new political parties would emerge running on a Libertarian ticket to rewrite the constitution against those parties who uphold the existing constitution. The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives congress the power to levy taxes on income. I think it should be repealed. I thought it was all about the constitution!

The Constitution at one point also said that you can't make or transport booze (which, I would argue, is in violation of the 10th amendment), and that got repealed.  I would argue that the 16th amendment also violates the 10th amendment.


Edited by Epignosis - September 27 2010 at 13:29

akamaisondufromage wrote:   I suppose it comes down to a belief in society and that your quality of life might be better if everybody's is.

I agree with that, and that's why I argue for free markets!

akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote:   I suppose it comes down to a belief in society and that your quality of life might be better if everybody's is.  I agree with that, and that's why I argue for free markets!   The trouble is Free Markets (If that is what we have) don't improve the Qof L for everyone.  At least not at the same rate.  And they can't provide everything.

1. We don't have a free market.

2. We have government trying to improve the quality of life for everyone (so we're told)

3. The quality of life for everyone is not improving. 

4.  The quality of life for everyone isn't changing at the same rate.

5. The government has all manner of programs and regulations on businesses, including raising minimum wage, having 13 years of mandatory education, and providing welfare, and people are still poor.

If something isn't working, why would anybody want more of it?


Edited by Epignosis - September 27 2010 at 13:49

akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote:   I suppose it comes down to a belief in society and that your quality of life might be better if everybody's is.  I agree with that, and that's why I argue for free markets!   The trouble is Free Markets (If that is what we have) don't improve the Qof L for everyone.  At least not at the same rate.  And they can't provide everything.     1. We don't have a free market. 2. We have government trying to improve the quality of life for everyone (so we're told) 3. The quality of life for everyone is not improving.  4.  The quality of life for everyone isn't changing at the same rate. 5. The government has all manner of programs and regulations on businesses, including raising minimum wage, having 13 years of mandatory education, and providing welfare, and people are still poor. If something isn't working, why would anybody want more of it?   Agree with most of what you say here.  And your conclusion.    Can't see how your taxless society can possibly function on any scale.  Maybe when we get out of Afghanistan it might work there?

I do not advocate a taxless society.  I advocate a society without income tax.  That said, nearly all government spending is unjustified.

akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote:   I suppose it comes down to a belief in society and that your quality of life might be better if everybody's is.  I agree with that, and that's why I argue for free markets!   The trouble is Free Markets (If that is what we have) don't improve the Qof L for everyone.  At least not at the same rate.  And they can't provide everything.     1. We don't have a free market. 2. We have government trying to improve the quality of life for everyone (so we're told) 3. The quality of life for everyone is not improving.  4.  The quality of life for everyone isn't changing at the same rate. 5. The government has all manner of programs and regulations on businesses, including raising minimum wage, having 13 years of mandatory education, and providing welfare, and people are still poor. If something isn't working, why would anybody want more of it?   Agree with most of what you say here.  And your conclusion.    Can't see how your taxless society can possibly function on any scale.  Maybe when we get out of Afghanistan it might work there? I do not advocate a taxless society.  I advocate a society without income tax.  That said, nearly all government spending is unjustified.   So what kind of tax would you have?  Which bit is justified?

Consumption tax that funded our military, infrastructure, and an efficient court system.  Entitlement spending goes out the window completely.

I am not opposed to changing the constitution when necessary. I am opposed to congress passing laws that violate the constitution as written. If they want to do something that goes against the constitution, they have to change it first. Proper channels, people! Proper channels! 

Edited by thellama73 - September 27 2010 at 15:02

thellama73 wrote: I am not opposed to changing the constitution when necessary. I am opposed to congress passing laws that violate the constitution as written. If they want to do something that goes against the constitution, they have to change it first. Proper channels, people! Proper channels!

Oh I know...but political science man. Aka I'm good at making overtly political statements that make you look bad

akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote:   I suppose it comes down to a belief in society and that your quality of life might be better if everybody's is.  I agree with that, and that's why I argue for free markets!   The trouble is Free Markets (If that is what we have) don't improve the Qof L for everyone.  At least not at the same rate.  And they can't provide everything.     1. We don't have a free market. 2. We have government trying to improve the quality of life for everyone (so we're told) 3. The quality of life for everyone is not improving.  4.  The quality of life for everyone isn't changing at the same rate. 5. The government has all manner of programs and regulations on businesses, including raising minimum wage, having 13 years of mandatory education, and providing welfare, and people are still poor. If something isn't working, why would anybody want more of it?   Agree with most of what you say here.  And your conclusion.    Can't see how your taxless society can possibly function on any scale.  Maybe when we get out of Afghanistan it might work there? I do not advocate a taxless society.  I advocate a society without income tax.  That said, nearly all government spending is unjustified.   So what kind of tax would you have?  Which bit is justified? Consumption tax that funded our military, infrastructure, and an efficient court system.  Entitlement spending goes out the window completely.   So in times of war when the economy is in trouble you would tax spending to encourage growth?  And fund defence ?   I assume Entitlement means Payments such as disability allowances unemployment benefits etc?   I can see the growth in the gap between poor and rich growing at quite a rate?

No...I would tax spending at all times, not just during war, and it need not be essentials like food (because some people like to say a consumption tax cripples the poor- Florida has no state income tax or tax on groceries).   By cutting spending down to the government's proper function, a consumption tax would be a very small percentage.  How does taxing income during war help the economy any more than a consumption tax would?

By the way, I don't mind a gap between the rich and poor.  Not one bit.  As I've said before, no amount of wealth redistribution will ever close the gap, at least not for more than a year.  Managing wealth is a skill most people don't have and never will.

thellama73 wrote: Epignosis wrote: By the way, I don't mind a gap between the rich and poor.  Not one bit.  As I've said before, no amount of wealth redistribution will ever close the gap, at least not for more than a year.  Managing wealth is a skill most people don't have and never will. I've never understood why people obsess over the gap. The gap is meaningless. If the rich get richer by 50% and the poor get richer by 40%, the gap widens but everyone is better off than they were, but the left would have you believe things are worse because the gap is wider.

It's like these racist pundits telling us that a racial gap in educational test scores is indicative of racism in schools. 

Gaps are fine and a fact of life.  Everyone could be poor...then there would be no gap.  But as I've said, managing wealth is a skill most people don't have.  Hence broke lottery winners and MC Hammer.

^the income the tax would raise during peace time could be saved up for use in time of war. I know it's a novel idea, but government doesn't have to spend all the money it raises. The poor not having enough to live on is a problem, but that has nothing to do with how much the rich earn. It's not like there is not a limited amount of money such that if the rich have more, the poor must necessarily have less.