For my Libertarian friends

At which point in the manufacturing process does consumption tax begin or end? Do I pay tax on the tree from the logging company because I am going to consume the tree to make wood pulp? Do I pay tax on the wood pulp from the pulper because I am going to consume the pulp to make paper? Do I pay tax on the paper from the paper mill because I am going to consume the paper to make books? Do I pay tax on the stock of books I bought from the publisher I'm going to sell in my bookshop? If I go into a bookshop to buy a book, whose tax bill do I pay?

 

With consumption tax you need to know where in the process the production stops and the consumption begins - In the above example I could have bought the tree to make logs to burn on my log fire, I could have bought wood-pulp to make into fire bricks to burn on my fire, I could have bought paper from the paper-mill for kindling to light my wood-stove. At each stage I would be the end-user and liable to tax, the wood-pulper, paper-miller and the publisher are not the end-users so not liable to tax - the logging company would need to know the end-use of each tree so it would know whether to charge tax or not.

 

If any of those manufacturers are exempt consumption tax on the consumables they use in the manufacturing process, does that extend to all the consumables they use in managing their business? Do they pay consumption tax on the PC they run pay-roll on or the trucks they bought to transport the goods they make or the coffee they brew in the staff canteen?

 

Then what of consumption of services - do I pay tax at a laundry? do I pay tax on parts and labour to a heating "engineer" who fixes my boiler? In my book example do I pay consumption tax on the manuscript I bought from the author? Of course these particular examples are all forms of income tax - the heating technician charges me his hourly-rate for his labour (wage) - if that is taxed then his income is being taxed - for the self-employed income-tax is the same as consumption tax - just seen from a different direction.

 

 

Only Llama answered my question on how you feel about government-issued citizenship and residence statuses... Can the government just say "you're a citizen" because it is the government? Is it legitimate? Why aren't we complaining about it? (soon I'll benefit from that, too, so I'm interested in your views). 

What do libertarians thinks of the Dream Act? This is a piece of legislation which would somehow legalize students who are illegal immigrants. Their parents enter their country illegally (or stayed illegally) thus their children couldn't legalize their situation. Now many of them are in schools and colleges and excel in many areas, show that they can be great prospects for the future of the US society, yet they face deportation and they can't enter universities because of their status (the illegality of which isn't their fault). What do you think of this proposed legislation (which was blocked by the GOP last week by the way)? 

Do you think this anti-immigrant behavior of the GOP is going to hurt them, if not now in the future when demographics in the US change? 

Rob was saying that that would solve the illegal immigration issue, since finally illegals would also pay taxes like everybody else. What I meant is, they aren't paying income taxes, but they are already paying consumption taxes. Of course if the rates and taxes products change, they are likely to pay more... 

That statement by itself is pretty meaningless though. 

I know what you actually mean though. Just thought I'd bring it into the open in less flowery terms.

Yes and no to your question. If you accept a philosophy of government such as yours T then I would say yes government absolutely has that right to set terms of citizenship.

As I brought up prior in this thread though, I'm torn about the issue overall. I would say no though, such governmental decrees are not legitimate. 

I would need more info about the Dream Act, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.

No. Currently the GOP's stance on immigration is an aid to them. In the future, when demographics are different perhaps, it will still not hurt them. Voters have short memories. The Democrat's platform of segregation and racism doesn't hurt them with minority voters currently.