For my Libertarian friends

I'm not even sure what a "Pennsylvania Accent" is Rob? And how the hell I got one?

Guess I am that avant

But now that you've done it Rob
*clears throat*

So, I'll grant you this. A consumption tax would be simpler in terms of paper work and implementation. Also it would make sure illegal immigrants, still pay into the system. As well as drug dealers and whoever else may avoid income tax.

But, as I've said before:
At lower income levels most of your  available income goes towards consumption. Don't have much say.
For them it is basically an income tax.
While those with more ability to save, will do so.

I know you support the idea because of freedom and fairness, but IMnotsoHO the result will be those that do not need the tax relief will be given even more, while those that are hurt enough by it already will be more so.
Seems that lower earners will never be able to rise up.

Also consumption, at least for now..... still drives the economy. What if many that don't have much $ to spare are forced to choose between saving and spending? Save and spend less, hurting the economy and their family (isn't the good thing about money being able to enjoy it?) or spend and enjoy your life/help the economy but will not be able to save?

The Fair Tax proposal suggests a rebate for lower earners, but that opens up another can of worms and I know you did not like that idea anyway.

Just my two cents, which I shall split up and distribute evenly.

JJLehto wrote: But now that you've done it Rob *clears throat* So, I'll grant you this. A consumption tax would be simpler in terms of paper work and implementation. Also it would make sure illegal immigrants, still pay into the system. As well as drug dealers and whoever else may avoid income tax. But, as I've said before: At lower income levels most of your  available income goes towards consumption. Don't have much say. For them it is basically an income tax. While those with more ability to save, will do so. I know you support the idea because of freedom and fairness, but IMnotsoHO the result will be those that do not need the tax relief will be given even more, while those that are hurt enough by it already will be more so. Seems that lower earners will never be able to rise up. Also consumption, at least for now..... still drives the economy. What if many that don't have much $ to spare are forced to choose between saving and spending? Save and spend less, hurting the economy and their family (isn't the good thing about money being able to enjoy it?) or spend and enjoy your life/help the economy but will not be able to save? The Fair Tax proposal suggests a rebate for lower earners, but that opens up another can of worms and I know you did not like that idea anyway. Just my two cents, which I shall split up and distribute evenly.

For sh*t's sake...

We already have a consumption tax.  Poor people already pay it.  Many states tax necessities like groceries.  I'm saying not tax groceries period.  Will that help or hurt poor people?

Tell me JJ- how will eliminated the income and corporate tax affect jobs (jobs poor people could use, right?)?  Go.

Then again has my lack of knowledge ever stopped me from saying stuff before Rob?

Negoba wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's not true. A shop is a social organization, but it does lessen liberty. Anyone who has any association with the shop does so of their own free will. The shop can only engage in contracts between agreeing parties. Liberty is in no way defeated.  Of course it does. A shop decrease my ability to have the things I want. It says I must engage in a formalised exchange ritual in order to obtain what I want, rather than just taking it.  IMO, the libertarian position breaks down with its choice not to put the same scrutiny on the social convention of property rights that it does on other ideas. Similarly, "Government" is given extra scrutiny over other social structures that concentrate power.  For acting like you're thinking outside the box, you libertarians cling to some traditions like Reb Tevye.

I know Rob but if all (or just about) of your available income (after bills and all) goes to consumption...wouldn't that be, basically, an income tax.

I know of course it is not an income tax, but isn't that what would basically happen for them?
And yes they could buy yachts and Ferrari's..but they can also not. They can also choose to live frugally.
Thus pay less taxes.

To you guys this is not even an issue I know. But to me it is.
So, I guess where back at step 1. Standing on our foundations a mile apart...

And you can have money and choose to live fairly frugally. Many do, and I knew one personally. My old roommate. Not sure how much money he had, but his family has a swiss bank account.
Proof of his frugal living? He chose to live in the sh*tty off campus apartment with all the rest of us for one...


Edited by JJLehto - September 28 2010 at 21:40

manofmystery wrote: JJLehto wrote: I'm not even sure what a "Pennsylvania Accent" is Rob? And how the hell I got one? Guess I am that avant     While I'm not fully caught up on the last several hour banter; I assume Rob is referring the accent we are said to have here in the western part of PA.  "Pittsburghese" isn't a statewide phenomenon, though. As far as I know the Philly area has no real accent, outside of sounding a little New Jerseyish .

Yeah Rob threw me a curve ball with that one. I know I dont sound Pittsburghian, hell I will die before I say "pop".

JJLehto wrote: I know Rob but if all (or just about) of your available income (after bills and all) goes to consumption...wouldn't that be, basically, an income tax.  I know of course it is not an income tax, but isn't that what would basically happen for them? And yes they could buy yachts and Ferrari's..but they can also not. They can also choose to live frugally. Thus pay less taxes.

No, for the reasons I described before- that 1) income tax is an invasion of privacy, 2) income tax requires buttloads of paperwork (that many people don't have the time or know how to file, so they must hire someone), and 3) the IRS costs buttloads of money to run.  Income tax is giving the government an interest free loan (if you get a refund); with a consumption tax, you pay exactly what you owe every time.

manofmystery wrote: JJLehto wrote: I'm not even sure what a "Pennsylvania Accent" is Rob? And how the hell I got one? Guess I am that avant     While I'm not fully caught up on the last several hour banter; I assume Rob is referring the accent we are said to have here in the western part of PA.  "Pittsburghese" isn't a statewide phenomenon, though. As far as I know the Philly area has no real accent, outside of sounding a little New Jerseyish .

Negoba wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Negoba wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's not true. A shop is a social organization, but it does lessen liberty. Anyone who has any association with the shop does so of their own free will. The shop can only engage in contracts between agreeing parties. Liberty is in no way defeated.  Of course it does. A shop decrease my ability to have the things I want. It says I must engage in a formalised exchange ritual in order to obtain what I want, rather than just taking it.  IMO, the libertarian position breaks down with its choice not to put the same scrutiny on the social convention of property rights that it does on other ideas. Similarly, "Government" is given extra scrutiny over other social structures that concentrate power.  For acting like you're thinking outside the box, you libertarians cling to some traditions like Reb Tevye. No it doesn't. First off, if the store never existed, the items in it would never have been available to you. Secondly, you're not free to take another's property.   These thoughts are grounded in someone brought up in capitalism, and are simplistic. Goods can become available multiple ways, not just through individual sale. Second of all, why aren't I free to take another's property? Oh yeah, the government.     Yes it is simplistic. So are Newtonian Mechanics. That's not a criticism. If the store didn't exist, anything you took from it would not have been there for you to take. I'm not so sure what's hard to understand about that.    You're contradicting yourself. First you talk about "free to take" as the mere ability to take from the store. However, the government doesn't stop you from having that ability. When I say free to do an act, I'm not talking of mere physical ability. You know that. I've explained time and time again why government receives extra scrutiny. It has a monopoly on the use of force. In economic situations, it is also able to operate free of many of the constraints necessary for free market interactions.    I've explained time and again that your idea that the government is the only power structure granted those tools is in error.   You've actually never explained it once, because you can't. Any legal authority to use force is the government's or granted by the government. I don't know what you mean about property rights.   You act as if property rights are the basis of society, sacrosanct, and that we're not to question how those rights are limited (as all "rights" must be). Many of us thing that one citizen having control of 1000s times more resources than another citizen is immoral, promotes crime, and prevents our society from being the best it can be. And that furthermore, these moral imperatives outweigh any individual (or corporation's) property rights. That's an opinion. Of course it can be debated. But I get the feeling that some think property rights aren't even on the table of discussion. You say "You're poor. Tough crud. Get a job and earn some money." I say, "Your luxury car got broken into by a street person. Tough crud. Don't conspicuously hoard wealth while others starve."   They are the basis of our society. And you're correct I treat them as sacrosanct. You have your own axiom set. I find yours immoral and unworkable. You dislike mine.  I don't see how an exaltation of property rights breaks down the libertarian system.   I don't act like I'm thinking outside the box. Libertarian thought seems incredibly obvious to me actually.