taxation

[Henry Quirk]

What is equitable ('fair') taxation?

That is: if you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?

[Kael]

[Quote Henry]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

[Quote Henry]

L.O.L. I hope that response didn't 'TAX' your capabilities too much.

[thedoc]

One simple solution is to take the budget and then collect a 'fair' share from each taxpayer. The problem would come when the Gov. tries to spend more than the population earns. So some means must be in place to limit spending, such as putting every 'tax' up to a binding referendum vote.

[ChuckF]

I'm posting!

[chunksmediocrites]

I agree with the famous communist Adam Smith that progressive taxation, that is a higher rate for the wealthy and a lower rate for the poor, is the way to organize taxes.

I would remove loopholes that allow corporations to use offshore tax shelters.

I would tax capital gains as part of taxable income and at the quintile level one is in.

I would increase existing tax rates from the first to fifth quintile: 2%, 4%, 6%, 9%, 15% to cover Universal Health Care (assuming such could be enacted).

I would do this increase again to cover universal secondary education, essentially similar to the Georgia model (assuming such could be enacted).

I would drop the tax rate from first to fifth quintiles .2, .4, .6, .9, 1.5% for every 10% reduction in the military budget, and increase in the same proportion.

I would not have a cut-off on high-end payroll taxes.

I would set up the estate tax so that it kicks in at $1 million (instead of $5 million currently).

I would require any corporation to be eligible for tax subsidies to cap total compensation value for their CEO (and below) at the highest government pay grade.

There's lots there to pick apart, but that's off the top of my head.

[Pan Narrans]

Monty Python - A Tax on Thingy - YouTube

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I agree with the famous communist Adam Smith that progressive taxation, that is a higher rate for the wealthy and a lower rate for the poor, is the way to organize taxes.

I would remove loopholes that allow corporations to use offshore tax shelters.

I would tax capital gains as part of taxable income and at the quintile level one is in.

I would increase existing tax rates from the first to fifth quintile: 2%, 4%, 6%, 9%, 15% to cover Universal Health Care (assuming such could be enacted).

I would do this increase again to cover universal secondary education, essentially similar to the Georgia model (assuming such could be enacted).

I would drop the tax rate from first to fifth quintiles .2, .4, .6, .9, 1.5% for every 10% reduction in the military budget, and increase in the same proportion.

I would not have a cut-off on high-end payroll taxes.

I would set up the estate tax so that it kicks in at $1 million (instead of $5 million currently).

I would require any corporation to be eligible for tax subsidies to cap total compensation value for their CEO (and below) at the highest government pay grade.

There's lots there to pick apart, but that's off the top of my head.

Chunks for Prez.

I just wrote a screed arguing estate tax and then deleted it after reading the for and against on Wiki. So yeah, rock on chunks. You've got my vote.

[AynMisesLibertarian]

15% flat

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

15% flat

Really? You support the state's coercive, gunpoint theft of 15% of your wealth?

[AynMisesLibertarian]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Really? You support the state's coercive, gunpoint theft of 15% of your wealth?

The question was not "should we dismantle the government"

the question was "given we should continue to have a government....what level of taxes is appropriate?

At least i'm Coherent unlikes the Chomsky drone "yeahyeah the state is bad!!! dismantle it!! but first we need Universal Healthcare, a strong safety net,more taxes for the riches"

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

The question was not "should we dismantle the government"

the question was "given we should continue to have a government....what level of taxes is appropriate?

At least i'm Coherent unlikes the Chomsky drone "yeahyeah the state is bad!!! dismantle it!! but first we need Universal Healthcare, a strong safety net,more taxes for the riches"

So you do support the state's coercive, gunpoint theft of 15% of your wealth?

[Watser?]

As opposed to more riches for the riches.

ETA: Is it crosspost with the Watser? day?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

the question was "given we should continue to have a government....what level of taxes is appropriate?

Not even close, but in your defense you are exceptionally stupid.

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

At least i'm Coherent

[AynMisesLibertarian]

Well I ,at least, admit that taxation is slavery

suppose you are taxed 100%

now you would beg to the State for something to eat...you are a complete slave

but suppose you are taxed 50% as I am

exactly you are 50% of a slave....

Is the Income Tax a Form of Slavery?

But but We must protect the weak!!

Now i'll ask,Is there something weaker than a woman?

well Bryan Caplan proved that woman are far less free now than two century ago

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ee_were_1.html

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

Well I ,at least, admit that taxation is slavery

And yet you support the state's coercive, gunpoint theft of wealth.

Why do you support slavery?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

At least i'm Coherent unlikes the Chomsky drone "yeahyeah the state is bad!!! dismantle it!! but first we need Universal Healthcare, a strong safety net,more taxes for the riches"

This is not even close to being an accurate summation of Chomsky's positions, which does not surprise me because you show no evidence of possessing the intellectual capacity to understand his writings, given that you did not even possess the reading comprehension necessary to understand the opening question in this thread. Chomsky's actual position is that government should ultimately be abolished, but that as long as capitalism and other oppressive institutions exist, it is not unreasonable to demand that government supply citizens who are otherwise not able to fend for themselves with day-to-day necessities like health care, housing, and food, even though the ultimate goal is the dismantlement of government and other hierarchical institutions. He has repeatedly stated this in plain language throughout his close to fifty years of writing about politics, which leads me to suspect that you have not in fact even read him and are simply mischaracterising his views based on straw men attributed to him by your lolbertarian friends. His actual reasoning is not, in fact, even remotely dissimilar to the "justification" you have presented in this thread for advocating a 15% flat tax:

given we should continue to have a government....what level of taxes is appropriate

Here is one of literally dozens of interviews in which he discusses his views on health care in an anarchist context. It's not like he's ever been inscrutable about them. This interview took me literally five seconds of googling to find; it took me more time to type in the keywords for the search than it did to locate the interview. In fact, a less charitable person than I am could say that he presents exactly the same reasoning you have presented for advocating taxes in the absence of anarchy, insofar as you could be said to have presented any reasoning at all. A particularly uncharitable person would say that your parroting the words of other lolbertarians does not, in fact, count as reasoning.

It is also worth pointing out that this is not the first time you have presented a straw man in place of Chomsky's actual views, and it probably won't be the last.

As for the actual topic, I would go into depth, but I'm tired and insofar as we're dealing with modern American society rather than an actual condition of anarchy, chunks already covered it pretty well.

eta: I just realised that AML probably doesn't possess the reading comprehension to get why his post is a straw man of Chomsky's position, so here's a hint: Dismantling the state isn't the goal. Dismantling all hierarchical institutions is the goal, and there are currently hierarchical institutions with at least as much power as the state that would simply fill the vacuum in power with something worse if the state were dismantled right now.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Man

This is not even close to being an accurate summation of Chomsky's positions, which does not surprise me because you show no evidence of possessing the intellectual capacity to understand his writings, given that you did not even possess the reading comprehension necessary to understand the opening question in this thread.

To be fair, given AML's obvious limitations, that counts as a spot-on analysis. Give credit where credit is due.

Originally Posted by The Man

...straw men attributed to him by your lolbertarian friends.

The assumption that that AML has friends, lolbertarian or otherwise, amounts to nothing less than introducing facts which are not in evidence.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The assumption that that AML has friends, lolbertarian or otherwise, amounts to nothing less than introducing facts which are not in evidence.

I was using the word "friends" either charitably or with dripping condescension. I'm unable to determine which. Maybe it was both.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

To be fair, given AML's obvious limitations, that counts as a spot-on analysis. Give credit where credit is due.

This is a fair point

[thedoc]

Does anyone think we should Tax religious institutions, and if so, should we tax Athiests at the same rate?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Really? You support the state's coercive, gunpoint theft of 15% of your wealth?

15% would be better than I'm getting now.

[ChuckF]

You got it champ.

[thedoc]

How about a flat Tax on sexual orentation?

[Angakuk]

Any tax on sexual orientation would definitely be regressive.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Any tax on sexual orientation would definitely be regressive.

Wouldn't that be fitting?