[IamIan]

Sorry for the length of this post ... there were too many things to cover in a shorter post.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Government does not add any value to any process.

I'm not saying government magically adds additional value ... I'm saying that we do get some + back for those - cost you added up ... it isn't 100% efficient return ... but it isn't 0% either.

You listed several of the costs ... direct and indirect ... as if there is not any return for any of those costs spent ... this is not an accurate representation.

It is very different to add up + this - that ... and in the end say the final cost benefit ratio could be or should be better than it is ... that is one thing ... it is very different to only add up all the - this - that ... ignore any + at all ... which is what I currently see you doing ... only adding up the - ... not including any + at all ... as if it were 0% efficient and we got absolutely nothing out of it at all.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

So the theory that you "get it back" is statistically absurd.

I'm not suggesting you get everything back you invest in ... nothing is 100% efficient ... there are always losses ... but it is equally absurd to pretend you get absolutely nothing 0% back at all ... or that there is any system that could achieve 100% efficiency ... there is always losses and less than 100% net system efficiency.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Profitable businesses hire people. Unprofitable businesses do not.

And no business is profitable or exists without consumers to buy their products ... it doesn't start with the business ... like a economic version of the food pyramid ... there have to be more plant eaters than meat eaters , and there have to be more plants than plant eaters , and there has to be more plant resources than plants... businesses are not the base of that economic pyramid ... they are but further up the economic food chain , and depend on the wider base beneath them to feed them.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Anything that adds to the cost of a delivered product or service must be added to the price or that product / service becomes unprofitable.

Don't just add the negative ... the other side is equally true.

Anything that reduces the cost of a delivered product or service must also reduce the price for that product to become profitable.

You can't reach an accurate view of the whole by ignoring any positive and pretending there is only negative to add up in one giant negative sum ignoring any positive that does exist.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between - but it is at least more than 1. Regulations are pure drag,

"Pure drag" ... is what I disagree with ... it is just not accurate.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Just remember: TANSSAAFL. (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).

I agree ...

• If you want enemy countries not to invade ... it will cost you something ... and sense nothing is 100% efficient ... you will get back less than 100% of what you invest in it.
• If you want a fire department to put out fires ... it will cost you ... and more than you get back.
• If you want a police force to stop a gangs with hundreds of members from running amok ... it will cost you... and more than you get back from it.
• etc...

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

True, but there is a fundamental question of whether or not that is even a desirable goal for government to interfere in.

Governments interfere ... they enforces the rules that the society that spawns it has chosen.

If person A want to kill person B ... our government interferes with person A's freedom to do what he wants ... etc.

I think the better questions are things like:

• What are those things we as a society do want our government to interfere with and what do we not want them to interfere with.
• What methods do we want our government to use or not use?
• etc.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

If you really want "equality," you have to treat everyone the same - meaning if you give to one you must give to all (obviously impossible, someone somewhere has to do actual work).

I don't think people want 100% real equality ... not just the 'someone has to work' idea ... if it were 100% equal than it would not take sides with the killer and the victim ... it would not take sides with the attacking enemy country and the defending citizen ... to take a side means you are not 100% equal or free anymore ... one person or side is benefiting more than the other ... one is being more restricted than the other.

So , I don't think it is about 100% equality ... I think it is about us as a society making choices about who and what to side with... and how we want to do so.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

America was founded on the principles of Freedom -

I agree ... but as you said above ... there is no free lunch ... or as others have said ... freedom isn't free.

It is not possible to be truly 100% free for any member of any society ... And like it or not there is strength in numbers ... if you aren't a member of a group strong enough to protect you from other groups ... you might be crushed by those other groups who you aren't able to defend yourself from.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

If you design a system with the goal of picking winners and losers, you are a totalitarian and, quite frankly, I would not help you if you were bleeding on the side of the road. Unless it was to back up and finish the job....

I disagree.

Any system will not benefit everyone equally ... that is just the way it is ... if you disagree with me ... by all means ... give me just one example of any system that has 100% equality to everyone ... I don't think it exists... they all pick one side or the other one way or the other.

In the case of the attacking enemy country ... yes I will pick a winner ... I want my country to side with me and other members of my country ... I don't want my country to sit on the side lines ... refusing to pick a side ... and I don't think that automatically requires my country or my system to be a totalitarian country or system just because it picked a side.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Government is force. The idea of the Rule of Law was to prevent government from picking winners and losers. All people were to be treated equally under the law.

I disagree.
The law does not treat the killer and the victim equally under the law ... it clearly picks sides and does not treat them equally ... etc.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Every 5 year old knows "rules can be changed or broken."

True ... but ... in order to be a member of any society there will always be rules of that society to follow ... and consequences of not following those rules ... if you don't think so ... by all means give me one example of any functional society that has no rules ... it doesn't exist... even comparatively primitive social groups like a pack of wolves have rules for members to follow and consequences when they don't follow them.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The advantage of doing some kind of sales tax rather than our current system are numerous. I won't say that the FairTax is the be-all end-all, and in fact I see two problems with it, but it is a million times better than what we have.

Perhaps.
I agree it has some pros and cons ... and in some ways it may function better than some alternatives ... including the current system ... but I don't see it as being "a million times better"... and I'm not sold on it being the only viable option.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Stop trying to have 70,000 pages of indecipherable rules that no one, not even the head of the IRS, understands.

I would agree with that part of it anyway.

I think a society's rules must be reasonably understandable by a reasonable % of that society ... and sadly our current system is far from that.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

True, but they bear the import costs and, if the U.S. switched to a Sales Tax you can bet your bottom dollar others would have to follow suit - negating the advantage. Self adjusting in short order.

I think that is pretty optimistic ... the countries of the world do not all mirror or follow everything the U.S. does.

Further why would that other country B with the income tax want to follow to change to a sales tax ??? Those people and companies taking income from Country A and spending it all in Country B would be funneling massive amounts of wealth out of Country A and into Country B... Country B benefits greatly from that system... and Those people and companies greatly benefit.

Of the 3 parties involved ... Country A ... Country B ... and the person or company earning in Country A but Spending in Country B ... the only one who looses is Country A ... both Country B and the people and companies benefit.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

What we purchase abroad is, in some abstract sense, almost irrelevant -

I disagree.

And without some 'fix' not yet described ... the only sales tax style system as described to date ... would drastically increase the benefits of massively increasing that outward funneling of wealth out of Country A into Country B... which makes purchases abroad very relevant to the pros and cons of the currently proposed sales tax only system.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Sorry for the length of this post ... there were too many things to cover in a shorter post.

Ditto, but I'll be condensing as much as I can...

I'm not saying government magically adds additional value ... I'm saying that we do get some + back for those - cost you added up ... it isn't 100% efficient return ... but it isn't 0% either.

That depends upon who you are. If you are a productive person in the U.S. you probably get nothing for the many programs benefiting about 5 people for each productive person. However, the "on average" you are looking for is also a myth: MOST people who benefit do so far in excess of their contribution, and MOST people who contribute receive no better than 50% of what they contribute towards any given program. In other words, our most productive are made slaves to improve the lives of others that they might vote for people who use force to steal the fruits of the labor of the productive - a naturally corrupt condition.

You listed several of the costs ... direct and indirect ... as if there is not any return for any of those costs spent ... this is not an accurate representation.

Yes, it is completely accurate. You do not wish to believe it is so because it conflicts with what you choose to believe. Do the math, study the numbers, and then go study some ethics. There is an inherent conflict of interest (at the very least) in the way our system is run. At worst, our government is worse than the greatest crime lords of antiquity.

I'm not suggesting you get everything back you invest in ... nothing is 100% efficient ... there are always losses ... but it is equally absurd to pretend you get absolutely nothing 0% back at all ... or that there is any system that could achieve 100% efficiency ... there is always losses and less than 100% net system efficiency.

Yet you assume that everyone gets "something back." They do not. Mostly, the productive simply break their backs and work more years before retirement so that others may be parasites their entire lives. It is a form of slavery.

Don't just add the negative ... the other side is equally true.

There is no other side to be "equally true." There is no net positive. Our nation's poor live as well, on average, as the average European. What do we have to show for it? We are bankrupt, our credit rating has been downgraded, and every child born is born $65,000 in debt. There is no positive side to economic collapse, nor are any of those people enjoying an "average European lifestyle" net contributors to our economy.

You can't reach an accurate view of the whole by ignoring any positive and pretending there is only negative to add up in one giant negative sum ignoring any positive that does exist.

You don't get it. There is no positive - it is a Unicorn, a Ponzi scheme, a pretty story told to children to persuade them to accept bondage. Most children grow up and realize there are no Unicorns; sadly, most Liberals never are willing to accept the facts that have been laid bare over and over again, in country after country. Socialism kills prosperity and drags down everyone's standard of living - except for a very few totalitarian leaders.

"Pure drag" ... is what I disagree with ... it is just not accurate.

It is perfectly accurate - you simply find it unpalatable because it disagrees with your preconceived notion that Socialism is workable. It is not.

• If you want enemy countries not to invade ... it will cost you something ... and sense nothing is 100% efficient ... you will get back less than 100% of what you invest in it.

• Actually, you get back every penny and then some - because the price of NOT protecting yourself is not simply this years' taxes, but everything you own and all your potential future earnings.

  If you want a fire department to put out fires ... it will cost you ... and more than you get back.

• Actually, you get back every penny and then some - because the buildings that DON'T burn down are worth more than the ongoing protection.

  If you want a police force to stop a gangs with hundreds of members from running amok ... it will cost you... and more than you get back from it.

• Actually, you get back every penny and then some - because only when there are consequences to violating the Rights of others will you be free from "rule of the strongest."

It is clear from these examples that you do not understand human history, nor human nature. We are not born moral; we learn moral behavior (at least some do). The price of maintaining civilization is an investment in civilization. These are as they should be; and unlike "Social Programs" which are used as shams to increase the size and power of government by empowering the poor to steal "legally" from the productive, they are moral.

Governments interfere ... they enforces the rules that the society that spawns it has chosen.

You are speaking of history and the "rule of men;" not of ethical "rule of law."

I think the better questions are things like:

• What are those things we as a society do want our government to interfere with and what do we not want them to interfere with.
• What methods do we want our government to use or not use?
• etc.

Once again, you ask the wrong questions because you start from a faulty premise. What are the circumstances under which use of force against citizens is ethically warranted, such that all citizens are treated equally under the law? When you follow the full line of reasoning, you can come only to the same conclusions as John Locke.

I don't think people want 100% real equality ... not just the 'someone has to work' idea ... if it were 100% equal than it would not take sides with the killer and the victim ... it would not take sides with the attacking enemy country and the defending citizen ... to take a side means you are not 100% equal or free anymore ... one person or side is benefiting more than the other ... one is being more restricted than the other.

Naturally. People do not want equality - they want an advantage. That is why government cannot be allowed to govern on whim or "popular vote," but must be constrained to ethical guidelines. There is only ONE other outcome: Tyranny. It is inevitable because it is human nature to seek more power / advantage over others, and the tool of choice is to pit the non-productive against the productive.

So , I don't think it is about 100% equality ... I think it is about us as a society making choices about who and what to side with... and how we want to do so.

That's because you haven't ever really given it real thought. Sorry, but there it is. If you did, you would realize that allowing government to make those kinds of decisions at all can only lead to one outcome - one of the innumerable forms of tyranny that have been created since the dawn of time.

I think a society's rules must be reasonably understandable by a reasonable % of that society ... and sadly our current system is far from that.

For over a century, any law that could not easily be comprehended by our citizens would be struck down in the courts. In more recent years, the courts have failed in their role of balancing the scales such that people are not unduly burdened with impossible laws.

I think that is pretty optimistic ... the countries of the world do not all mirror or follow everything the U.S. does.

That's fine - they would suffer a 30% disadvantage in competing with our goods and services - both here and abroad.

Further why would that other country B with the income tax want to follow to change to a sales tax ???

To keep from being slaughtered economically. However, some will not be willing to give up the power of their version of the IRS, and so will gladly take their country down the tubes rather than give up their power. It will then fall to their people to overthrow their false leaders for survival.

And without some 'fix' not yet described ... the only sales tax style system as described to date ... would drastically increase the benefits of massively increasing that outward funneling of wealth out of Country A into Country B... which makes purchases abroad very relevant to the pros and cons of the currently proposed sales tax only system.

There are only three ways to tax. You can tax productivity; consumption; or confiscate property. Confiscating property can only be done once; reduces its value (when done on a large scale); and angers the people greatly (especially the very wealthy, who tend to be powerful and own most of the property). Taxing productivity hurts your country economically by pre-loading products with your tax load, but has the desirability in the eyes of politicians that you can disguise the actual level of taxation and provides an excuse for a large intelligence agency demanding everyone's private financial details. Taxing consumption is the least harmful to the economy; most visible to everyone; and puts the control of "how much tax to pay" into the hands of individuals. It is the simplest / cheapest to collect, and for that and many other reasons is the most ethical. However, from politicians' standpoint it is undesirable because it does not provide the leverage to play various groups against each other.

Thus it was that our Founding Fathers explicitly forbade any form of tax upon "income," because such taxes could be arbitrarily set by Congress effectively enslaving the workers, or confiscation of property without due process of law. They did not mince words on this, they were quite clear and absolutely correct, and you may wish to ponder this.

[IamIan]

Still longer than I would like ... Concise is not one of my strengths.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

However, the "on average" you are looking for is also a myth:

Sorry I was not more clear.
I'm not looking for a 'on average' ... We can add up the positives just like you did the negatives ... And I think the only way it can be an accurate analysis of the + and - combinations is to include both + and -.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

MOST people who benefit do so far in excess of their contribution, and MOST people who contribute receive no better than 50% of what they contribute towards any given program.

Both of those conditions you just listed are exactly the direction I've been trying to describe.

Any return above 0% is a positive return ... that '50% of what they contribute' is a 50% + of the -$Cost ... which effectively reduces the net -$cost by the +$50% Benefit.

If it Costs me $100 and I get a $50 return ... It has a net Costs of $50.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Yes, it is completely accurate. You do not wish to believe it is so because it conflicts with what you choose to believe.

It is not because of what I 'wish to believe' ... it is just not accurate.

And you yourself bellow list some of the + Returns I've been talking about.

I'm not claiming the + benefit is larger than the -$Cost ... I'm claiming the + exists... that it is not a completely - list with no benefits at all.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Yet you assume that everyone gets "something back." They do not.

Not so much assume ... as I can't think of any real world situation where the person actually gets ZERO , Nothing, Absolutely Nothing at all back... If you can, by all means please let me know what it is.

See your own examples of +Returns bellow.

I'm not saying this is the best possible system ... or the largest return on investment ... or the most efficient ... but there is a return ... it is not 0% efficient.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Mostly, the productive simply break their backs and work more years before retirement so that others may be parasites their entire lives.

The + benefits not being better distributed is a fair issue to try and deal with ... and I would agree that there is a lot of reform that should take place ... and far too many loop holes for one person or another to exploit one way or another.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

There is no other side to be "equally true." There is no net positive.

I'm not claiming net positive.

I'm claiming there is positive that exists ... See your own examples of my point Bellow.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

You don't get it. There is no positive - it is a Unicorn, a Ponzi scheme, a pretty story told to children to persuade them to accept bondage.

I know you have that position.
Didn't seem to stop you from giving some of those positives yourself bellow.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

It is perfectly accurate - you simply find it unpalatable because it disagrees with your preconceived notion that Socialism is workable. It is not.

It isn't accurate because even your own examples bellow disagree with the idea of 'Pure Drag'.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Actually, you get back every penny and then some - because the price of NOT protecting yourself is not simply this years' taxes, but everything you own and all your potential future earnings.

This completely disagrees with you previous position ... If we get anything at all back .... 'pure drag' ... for that National Defense spending ... it would violate your insistence that we get nothing back at all for all the -$Cost List.

Part of the -$Cost List you built includes This Spending that here you claim has a return.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Actually, you get back every penny and then some - because the buildings that DON'T burn down are worth more than the ongoing protection.

Again this violates your previous position that we get nothing back at all ... This return you list here ... comes from some of that -$Cost List.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Actually, you get back every penny and then some - because only when there are consequences to violating the Rights of others will you be free from "rule of the strongest."

Again this violates your previous position that we get nothing back at all ... 'Pure Drag' ... The cost of this is part of the -$Cost List.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The price of maintaining civilization is an investment in civilization.

Again this violates your previous position that we get nothing back at all ... That is another + Return on some of that -$Cost.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

It is clear from these examples that you do not understand human history, nor human nature.

These examples showed exactly what I wanted to show ... you listed each of them as having some positive return ... thus disagreeing with your previous position about 'pure drag' , and not having any positive at all.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Once again, you ask the wrong questions because you start from a faulty premise. What are the circumstances under which use of force against citizens is ethically warranted, such that all citizens are treated equally under the law?

Your using the same questions I listed.
You're just answering them.
Odd you would consider them the wrong questions?

My First Question you answer several times ... citizens as a specific group ... and not non-citizens ... the second question you answer with the use of force... etc...

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

That's because you haven't ever really given it real thought. Sorry, but there it is. If you did, you would realize that allowing government to make those kinds of decisions at all can only lead to one outcome - one of the innumerable forms of tyranny that have been created since the dawn of time.

You're conclusion about me is incorrect ... I have given it a fair amount of thought.

If you know something I've missed ... I'd like to know what it is ... I'm not psychic.

For example ... There are two people ... Person A wants to Kill Person B ... Person B doesn't want to be killed ... the desires of the two people are in conflict ... we as a society in the U.S. do take a side here ... we do not treat them both equally ... and I don't see that being tyranny.

Please explain how you would have a functional society without taking sides between the Person A and Person B who's desires are in conflict as I described above about killing vs being killed?

Or ... List any one Law we enforce as a society that you are in agreement with ... that does not take any sides at all... I don't think one exists.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

the courts have failed in their role of balancing the scales such that people are not unduly burdened with impossible laws.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

That's fine - they would suffer a 30% disadvantage in competing with our goods and services - both here and abroad.

I wonder how much wealth transfer it would take to make it worth while?

So , just so I understand your position correctly ... under the sales tax only system ... Are you're ok with those people and companies that are not contributing their fair share or at all ? ... and are just leaching wealth and resources out of the country?

Sense they make their purchases in other countries ... if our country were 100% only sales tax ... we wouldn't see any tax income from those purchases or those people or companies ... but they would still benefit from our military and such which are paid for by the rest of us.

- - - - -

Another loop hole that occurs to me ... in the sales tax only system ... at least for those not wanting to contribute and just wanting to leach ... you pay an employee as an intermediary instead of buying a product directly.

Want a car ... hire an 'employee' , who's job is to find you a really nice car ... he finds a car that is $1 ... which you pay sales tax on that $1 ... you pay the employee's income of $100,000 ... which would be tax free.

Someone else hires the same person to find you a nice car ... maybe only $30,000 income tax free ... he also finds that person a car for $1 ... he just doesn't find as nice of a car.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Sorry I was not more clear.
I'm not looking for a 'on average' ... We can add up the positives just like you did the negatives ... And I think the only way it can be an accurate analysis of the + and - combinations is to include both + and -.

From whose point of view? From my point of view, and that of many taxpayers, there are no positives. Slaves do not generally approve of their condition, nor does the happiness of the parasites improve the morality of it.

Both of those conditions you just listed are exactly the direction I've been trying to describe.

Any return above 0% is a positive return ... that '50% of what they contribute' is a 50% + of the -$Cost ... which effectively reduces the net -$cost by the +$50% Benefit.

If it Costs me $100 and I get a $50 return ... It has a net Costs of $50.

Yes, and the difference between what it WOULD have cost had not government interfered and what it DOES cost is the "Pure Drag" I was talking about. The benefit is exactly the same (well, sometimes. Oftentimes under government control fewer people are willing to accept the added burden of doing a particular job - doctors in Great Britain come to mind.).

It is not because of what I 'wish to believe' ... it is just not accurate.

Your faith in Unicorns is very strong. It would be admirable if there were, in fact, Unicorns.

I'm not claiming the + benefit is larger than the -$Cost ... I'm claiming the + exists... that it is not a completely - list with no benefits at all.

But it does not. Presuming you are a person who pays their own bills, you would see the doctor whether or not the government interfered. There is no new benefit, only additional cost.

Not so much assume ... as I can't think of any real world situation where the person actually gets ZERO , Nothing, Absolutely Nothing at all back... If you can, by all means please let me know what it is.

I'm a good example. An IT worker, I've received zero unearned benefits in my lifetime from the Federal government (my principle point of dissatisfaction - as State governments, the ones I've spent most of my time in are not too bad). Military pay and benefits, by the way, are earned. On the other hand, I've been inflicted with innumerable bothersome yet valueless regulations and taxes. Note that I draw a line when making this statement between those services our Government was Constitutionally chartered to provide.

It isn't accurate because even your own examples bellow disagree with the idea of 'Pure Drag'.

See above. No new net services, simply additional cost. That is "pure drag."

This completely disagrees with you previous position ... If we get anything at all back .... 'pure drag' ... for that National Defense spending ... it would violate your insistence that we get nothing back at all for all the -$Cost List.

As always, you want to use the legitimate purpose of government as an example that "the benefit is good," then switch to the unethical aspects and claim that the same principles apply. They do not - and this is the nub of the issue. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious and fundamental difference in principle between "defense and the rule of law" vs. "controlling people to establish your personal vision of fairness, whatever that might mean to you." The two are utterly antithetical - one being necessary to the establishment and maintenance of a free society, the other being the usurpation of a free society.

If you know something I've missed ... I'd like to know what it is ... I'm not psychic.

Perhaps it is a form of a "mental blind spot," and no amount of explaining will help you "see." I do not know, but will try again with your next example.

For example ... There are two people ... Person A wants to Kill Person B ... Person B doesn't want to be killed ... the desires of the two people are in conflict ... we as a society in the U.S. do take a side here ... we do not treat them both equally ... and I don't see that being tyranny.

It is not - it is the enforcement of what I call the "principle of reflection," for what is "ok" for one person to do must be "ok" for another, and none wish to be murdered. I personally believe this principle describes the only goal that government legitimately exists to maximize.

Government is authorized force. Force is antithetical to liberty unless it is constrained to protecting that liberty. Note that governments were created to provide a single point of conflict resolution. Without government we had endlessly squalling gangs. Thus, creation of a government actually reduced the price of the endless skirmishing.

Clearly there is no other way to accomplish peace than to have a single point of conflict arbitration. Some regimes do better than others, and this is generally easily identifiable by the principles they enforce. If they are uniform and just, people prosper. If they are arbitrary and harsh, people flee or suffer. In either case, the regime in power at least has the "justification" that some form of government must exist to keep the peace.

However, when government seeks to usurp OTHER roles (such as health care) that are easily available without government, then that usurpation is always pure drag (the service was available without government; the imposition of government makes it more costly). As a whole, the society suffers a reduction in their standard of living and in their liberty.

So , just so I understand your position correctly ... under the sales tax only system ... Are you're ok with those people and companies that are not contributing their fair share or at all ? ... and are just leaching wealth and resources out of the country?

What is a "fair share?" Who decides? Why, when we are $80 trillion in debt (counting unfunded future obligations) do we even consider an argument that starts with "they aren't paying enough" when in fact the problem is spending too much?

When something is "fair," it means "the same for everyone." Nothing could be more fair than a retail sales tax. If you detest the idea of someone being fabulously wealthy and consider that state criminal, why not simply create a SPECIAL tax that, say, strips them of half they own any time they exceed $1 billion in net worth? Of course, all of the billionaires (our best business people) will leave the country and we will suffer in international competitiveness for their departure, but it would be "fair." Instead, we have a system designed to prevent people from ever becoming financially independent - such that they must toil many more years under the government harness, ever deprived of their rightful reward.

Sense they make their purchases in other countries ... if our country were 100% only sales tax ... we wouldn't see any tax income from those purchases or those people or companies ... but they would still benefit from our military and such which are paid for by the rest of us.

You are speaking of "cheating." Forget about it. Current cheating is on the order of 20%; out of country cheating would never amount to more than 1% - it costs more to drive into Mexico to buy groceries than the savings you might hope to see. Too, people think that a Sales Tax would result in higher prices. This is pretty much a false assumption - what they do not consider is that the taxes removed in lieu of the Sales Tax just about exactly offset the new Sales Tax, and so the net price to the consumer will be "about the same." Not exactly, of course - but close enough that driving into Mexico won't help. And, of course, new boats or cars coming across are quite likely to be taxed at the border, negating the possibility of all but complex sales.

The fundamental question of taxation is whether to tax the producers, or tax the market. Taxing producers penalizes those who produce, making it harder to compete globally. Taxing the market favors US, not "THEM," and rewards those who save and invest. We have the biggest market on the planet. When we sell stuff abroad, all of the money comes back to our country and into the selling business - creating more domestic jobs for people who buy stuff, thus paying taxes. When other countries sell into our market, taxes are paid on their goods at the same rate our goods are taxed - making the playing field "fair."

There will, of course, be SOME cheating under a sales tax. However, even the most outrageous estimates place it at less than 10% - which would be less than half our current rate.

BTW - the example of the FairTax applies only to Retail sales of NEW goods and services. Unlike a VAT, the tax is only paid once - so no one is cheating if they sell their used car without tax.


As always, I will allow this much - I do believe it is possible, and even ethical, do do SOMETHING for those who cannot support themselves. And, I can even illustrate it using my "law of reflection" - for surely, no one would wish to be left to starve if they cannot find a job. However, you cannot accomplish net good through evil, and thus control over such programs should never lie in the hands of the recipients nor should beneficiaries ever receive money. Both situations make the attempt utterly corrupt and unethical. Reversing those injustices (providing only food, clothing, shelter, basic medical care but no money that could be spent on booze and drugs, and revoking the vote from recipients for at least one election cycle after they stop receiving aid) while forcing government to balance their budget and adopt a simple and visible tax system such as a sales tax, would result in a sustainable system that promotes economic prosperity. However, since that's not what Politicians want we are unlikely ever to see such a system...

[IamIan]

Sorry ... Another overly long response.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

From my point of view, and that of many taxpayers, there are no positives.

This disagrees with your claims about National Defense being a positive.

National Defense is paid for by taxes ... to insist there are no positive benefits ... includes everything and anything those taxes pay for ... including national defense.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Yes, and the difference between what it WOULD have cost had not government interfered and what it DOES cost is the "Pure Drag" I was talking about.

And What I was talking about ... is that when you add up all the -$Costs of taxation direct and indirect like you were doing ... you were not including any + effects we get for those costs ... A National Defense is a positive thing ... we get this positive result along with the negative -$Costs you added up ... the two go together... as long as national defense is paid for by taxes and as long as national defense is a positive thing ... then at the very least we are getting this one positive thing back from those costs.

Before you again jump to some conclusions I've already discussed ... I'll again point out ... I am not claiming it is a net positive ... I am not claiming it the best system to get the largest return ... I am not claiming it is the most efficient system ... I am not claiming it can not be improved ... I'm claiming that there are positives that exist ... and you yourself have already agreed to some of those things as being positive.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

I'm a good example. An IT worker, I've received zero unearned benefits in my lifetime from the Federal government (my principle point of dissatisfaction - as State governments, the ones I've spent most of my time in are not too bad). Military pay and benefits, by the way, are earned. On the other hand, I've been inflicted with innumerable bothersome yet valueless regulations and taxes. Note that I draw a line when making this statement between those services our Government was Constitutionally chartered to provide.
See above. No new net services, simply additional cost. That is "pure drag."

Those taxes you pay are not 'pure drag' unless you also consider all of those things as having no positive value at all ... including the national defense ... and any of those things you list as 'Constitutionally Chartered to Provide' ... Those are also paid for by those -$Costs you added up.

Which has been my point all along ... Some of that -$Cost you added up includes the funding for + things ... like National Defense ... It is not accurate to only add up those -$Costs direct and indirect ... there are some things paid for by those -$Costs that are a + Return ... National Defense is one of them... and just like the example of -$100 paid +$50 of Return still = -$50 paid ... it might not be a net positive... it might not be the best return ... or the most efficient ... but there is still a + there ... to only add up the - and ignore the + ... creates a inaccurate analysis.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

As always, you want to use the legitimate purpose of government as an example that "the benefit is good," then switch to the unethical aspects and claim that the same principles apply.

You've somehow jumped to a incorrect conclusion about me ... I don't know how you got there??

I have not been trying to 'switch' at all ... I have been very consistent ... I think there are some + that also need to be added as part of the -$Cost direct and indirect you added up ... The only specific +s I've listed so far you have agreed with me ... the existence of a National Defense is a + ... the existences of Fire Fighting is a + ... the existence of a Police force is a +... any one of those existing as a + , disproves the 'pure drag' of your -$Cost of all taxes direct and indirect.

If there are ANY positives ... even 'legitimate' purposes of government ones ... those are still positives... and are paid for out of the -$Cost you piled up from direct and indirect sources.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

It is not - it is the enforcement of what I call the "principle of reflection," for what is "ok" for one person to do must be "ok" for another, and none wish to be murdered. I personally believe this principle describes the only goal that government legitimately exists to maximize.

And to me ... that reflection principle you describe will also still obey what I already listed ... under that reflection principle if it is ok for us to Nuke Japan than it must be ok for Japan to Nuke us ... but we don't see it that way ... instead we use the method I described ... We pick what we want to do and not do ( including which side to take ) ... and we pick what methods we want to use or what we don't want to use.

We do not want other countries to be able to or allowed to nuke us equally as we can nuke them ... we picked a side ... it is not equal ... we don't want it to be equal ... and we picked some methods we want to use and some we don't want to use.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Government is authorized force. Force is antithetical to liberty unless it is constrained to protecting that liberty. Note that governments were created to provide a single point of conflict resolution. Without government we had endlessly squalling gangs. Thus, creation of a government actually reduced the price of the endless skirmishing.

You just listed another + we get for all those -$Costs you added up.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

However, when government seeks to usurp OTHER roles (such as health care) that are easily available without government, then that usurpation is always pure drag (the service was available without government; the imposition of government makes it more costly). As a whole, the society suffers a reduction in their standard of living and in their liberty.

Except ... You weren't listing only the specific costs of specific actions ... like tax $ spent only on government involvement in Health Care ... you were adding up ALL the direct and indirect -$Cost effects of taxation ... all of it ... which yes will include some of these things ... but will also include the funding for other things like national defense ... positives I did not see you taking into account in that -$Cost you added up.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

What is a "fair share?" Who decides?

Those excellent questions and issues.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

when in fact the problem is spending too much?

Another Good issue with the current system.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

When something is "fair," it means "the same for everyone."

I don't agree ... I don't think the term 'fair' means exactly the same thing as Equal ... I think the two terms 'Fair' and 'Equal' have a significant difference.

'The same for everyone' to me is better described by the term 'equal' ... not necessarily the term 'fair'.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

You are speaking of "cheating." Forget about it.

That's Funny.

Unless you describe a 'fix' or some method in your system to account for or deal with these issues ... they will happen ... so I don't see sufficient reason to 'forget about it.'... nor pretend these issues don't exist.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

And, of course, new boats or cars coming across are quite likely to be taxed at the border, negating the possibility of all but complex sales.

You just suggested adding a non-sales tax to your system.

Do you plan on taxing everything that comes across the border?
How much of a border tax do you want in your system?

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The fundamental question of taxation is whether to tax the producers, or tax the market.

To me ... the 'fundamental' question of taxation is a bit different.

To me it would be along the lines of...
'What method of resource acquisition , provides what is needed with the least negative impact.'

Part of that could be the more narrow question you list ... but for me the 'fundamental' question of taxation is a bit more open ended than the much more narrow one you listed.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

As always, I will allow this much - I do believe it is possible, and even ethical, do do SOMETHING for those who cannot support themselves.

Nice thought ... for a completely different topic ... but not something I was getting at nor describing at any point in this discussion of the existence of a + we get from the total sum of all direct and indirect -$Cost of taxation you listed.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by IamIan

This disagrees with your claims about National Defense being a positive.

You do so love to try to change the context of what I say - yet we can pull up my quotes and clearly see my issue is with UN-Constitutional and unethical government activities. Honestly, it is difficult to tell if you are being purposely disingenuous or are truly having difficulty differentiating between the part of the conversation where we are discussing the total burden of taxation (irrespective of benefit), vs. the part where we are discussing the relative merits and disadvantages of one tax system compared to another, vs. the parts where we have discussed that unethical government activities destroy our standard of living and force people to work many extra years.

And What I was talking about ... is that when you add up all the -$Costs of taxation direct and indirect like you were doing ... you were not including any + effects we get for those costs

Please explain to us the benefit of needless compliance costs? The value to the average consumer of the additional costs imposed by onerous regulatory requirements? Or, perhaps you can show the benefit to Liberty of our largest intelligence agency aimed squarely at violating our personal privacy? Better yet, help us all understand the wonders of choosing a tax system that benefits our enemies and harms our citizens? Still better, explain to us all in our ignorance the "benefit" the productive citizens of our country have reaped from our governments' tripling of our paper money supply? You see, all of these are burdens irrespective of what benefit we might reap from them. You keep failing to differentiate between the questions of "what is the total burden, and is it too much?" vs. "are we taking a rational approach to managing that burden?"

As I stated before, the numbers I provided are simple non-partisan facts and, placed clearly in context as contrasted with clear alternatives. When discussing relative merits of approaches to taxation I highlighted only the relative disadvantage those choices made by our government imposes upon us for the same level of taxation. Thus, everything I laid out is a pure negative.

Before you again jump to some conclusions I've already discussed ... I'll again point out ... I am not claiming it is a net positive ... I am not claiming it the best system to get the largest return ... I am not claiming it is the most efficient system ... I am not claiming it can not be improved ... I'm claiming that there are positives that exist ... and you yourself have already agreed to some of those things as being positive.

Yes, positives when government pursues the ethical obligations spelled out to it under our Constitution, obeying not only the letter but the intent. But, we are not discussing any such things, so please stop pretending they are a part of the conversation.

I have not been trying to 'switch' at all ... I have been very consistent.

Yes - you consistently pretend to be oblivious to the obvious differences between legitimate government activity and our system today, claiming "moral equivalence." Well, the people of Wisconsin have spoken loudly tonight. They can tell the difference, even if you cannot.

And to me ... that reflection principle you describe will also still obey what I already listed ... under that reflection principle if it is ok for us to Nuke Japan than it must be ok for Japan to Nuke us ... but we don't see it that way ... instead we use the method I described ... We pick what we want to do and not do ( including which side to take ) ... and we pick what methods we want to use or what we don't want to use.

Thus, with that misapplication of the trivial principle I laid out for you, you apparently envision no moral dimension to such decisions. I must therefore imagine that, like many other Liberals, you believe that Japan was morally equivalent to the U.S. in WWII. If that is the case, you are morally bankrupt and beyond any help I might offer.

Except ... You weren't listing only the specific costs of specific actions ... like tax $ spent only on government involvement in Health Care ... you were adding up ALL the direct and indirect -$Cost effects of taxation ... all of it ... which yes will include some of these things ... but will also include the funding for other things like national defense ... positives I did not see you taking into account in that -$Cost you added up.

We have been talking about total taxation on the one hand, which most certainly includes all costs no matter what we receive for it in return, and about the relative merits of the methods of taxation on the other hand, changes in which would yield specific benefits to our nation. If that is too many, which one would you like me to stick to?

I don't agree ... I don't think the term 'fair' means exactly the same thing as Equal ... I think the two terms 'Fair' and 'Equal' have a significant difference.

You don't have to agree. That is what it means under the law. Any other definition is subjective and invokes the "Rule of Men," not the "Rule of Law."

'The same for everyone' to me is better described by the term 'equal' ... not necessarily the term 'fair'.

People are not equal. Is that unfair? Trying to MAKE them equal has resulted in greater injustices than all the wars in history. The word "fair" has no place in the law, nor should it - ever.

That's Funny.

Unless you describe a 'fix' or some method in your system to account for or deal with these issues ... they will happen ... so I don't see sufficient reason to 'forget about it.'... nor pretend these issues don't exist.

But I am not the one pretending it does not exist - you are. You point out that there is liable to be cheating under this proposed system, as if there were ever a system of taxation in all of recorded history that was not cheated and inferring that it was a flaw in the system. Yet the numbers suggest another story - that our current corrupt system incurs a 20%, and the proposed system would reduce that by 50-85% (exact amount indeterminable without actually doing it, and without knowing what sort of effort will be expended on enforcement). I'd call that a fix. If the criteria for changing our tax system includes that the new system must have zero percent cheating, then we are doomed to whatever we have now or worse.

You just suggested adding a non-sales tax to your system.

No I did not. I suggested that there are ways of determining if a new vehicle purchase occurred across the border for the purpose of evading our tax system. That comes under enforcement. The principle of a sales tax is that goods sold into our market are taxed - period.

To me ... the 'fundamental' question of taxation is a bit different.

To me it would be along the lines of...
'What method of resource acquisition , provides what is needed with the least negative impact.'

That is more along the lines of a set of criteria for evaluating a system of taxation - and begs the question, "least negative impact in what way?" Otherwise, I agree with that. What I was referring to was a philosophical question of approach to taxation - there being only three (tax production; tax consumption; directly confiscate property). Were that sort of criteria ever considered in our Congress, we would already have something very like the FairTax.

Nice thought ... for a completely different topic ... but not something I was getting at nor describing at any point in this discussion of the existence of a + we get from the total sum of all direct and indirect -$Cost of taxation you listed.

The two are inextricably bound, for that is the justification / rationalization given for 75% of our Governmental expenditures. Eliminate Social Programs and useless government agencies (about 75% of them qualify for retirement), and the METHOD of taxation would be far less scrutinized because the LEVEL of taxation would be below the threshold of true irritation for most people.

[david85]

I don't see how everyone being treated equally under the law means that someone who breaks the law is still entitled to the freedom everyone else has. That seems to be what Ian was implying.

Equality means everyone is treated equally under the law, so long as they obide by it. Kill someone or steal something and sure there are consequences. Its not that complicated.

Congrats to Wisconsin though. Nice to see him widen the lead since the election.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by david85

I don't see how everyone being treated equally under the law means that someone who breaks the law is still entitled to the freedom everyone else has. That seems to be what Ian was implying.

Equality means everyone is treated equally under the law, so long as they obide by it. Kill someone or steal something and sure there are consequences. Its not that complicated.

Some people don't seem to grasp that Freedom is a Privilege that becomes forfeit when you violate the rights of others. I've met people who think that all prisoners should simply be released, because they cannot differentiate between the morality of someone who has murdered and someone who has not. "They're all human beings!!!"

Congrats to Wisconsin though. Nice to see him widen the lead since the election.

Yeah, I was hoping for more of a blowout based on early returns (61% to 39% at one point), but apparently the fiscally sane simply went to the polls earlier than the fiscally irresponsible who got bussed in later.

[IamIan]

In an effort to condense post size , I skipped replying to some things ... if desired I am happy to address any of those skipped items ... just let me know which one.

- - - - - -

Originally Posted by david85

I don't see how everyone being treated equally under the law means that someone who breaks the law is still entitled to the freedom everyone else has. That seems to be what Ian was implying.

Not what I have been trying to get at at all... I don't know how you got that impression?

Add up all the direct and indirect -$Cost of Taxation ... those are all negatives ... those negatives do not exist alone ... as if in some vacuum of existence.

If there is ANYTHING at ALL ... Even national defense ... which is funded by those -$Costs ... ANYTHING at all ... even one thing ... any thing ... that is considered to be positive ... than it is not accurate to just add up the negative ... ANYTHING that is positive should also be included in order to have an accurate analysis.

- - - - -

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Honestly, it is difficult to tell if you are being purposely disingenuous or are truly having difficulty differentiating between the part of the conversation where we are discussing the total burden of taxation (irrespective of benefit), vs. the part where we are discussing the relative merits and disadvantages of one tax system compared to another, vs. the parts where we have discussed that unethical government activities destroy our standard of living and force people to work many extra years.

(Bold Added)

Not disingenuous ... no difficulty differentiating ...

My point has been this bold part makes the total only of negatives not accurate view of the real whole.

My point has been when you add up that 'Total Burden of Taxation' ... if you don't include the positive things as well ... than you are not being accurate ... things paid for with taxation that are positive ... ANYTHING paid for with taxation ... including the national defense of the country ... if there is ANYTHING that is funded with ANY part of the Taxation that is considered to be a positive thing ... that should be accounted for in determining the 'Total Burden of Taxation'.

It is not Accurate to only add up the negative and ignore the positive.

Just like you can't accurately know your budget or balance your check book by only adding up your negative output withdrawals and ignoring any positive input deposits.

I started off ... in post # 2665 ... just asking you simply where / how you were accounting for these positives ... at which point you dug into the position of there being no positives at all.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

You see, all of these are burdens irrespective of what benefit we might reap from them.

I'm not saying burdens don't exist.
I'm saying there are some Positive returns that do exist ... and those positives are part of an accurate analysis.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

You keep failing to differentiate between the questions of "what is the total burden, and is it too much?" vs. "are we taking a rational approach to managing that burden?"

I'm not even talking about either of those.

I'm still struggling to get you to admit that the negative cost of taxation that pays for national defense has a positive return ... thus a positive does exist , and should be accounted for to be accurate.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Yes, positives when government pursues the ethical obligations spelled out to it under our Constitution, obeying not only the letter but the intent. But, we are not discussing any such things, so please stop pretending they are a part of the conversation.

Correction.

I've been trying to talk about the existence of ANY positive thing ... ANY includes those 'ethical obligations' ... you have been insisting that there are no such positives at all.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Yes - you consistently pretend to be oblivious to the obvious differences between legitimate government activity and our system today, claiming "moral equivalence."

I have not once claimed 'moral equivalence' ... I don't know where you imagined that? ... I've been struggling just to get you to admit that any positives exist at all ... even 'legitimate government activity'.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

We have been talking about total taxation on the one hand, which most certainly includes all costs no matter what we receive for it in return, and about the relative merits of the methods of taxation on the other hand, changes in which would yield specific benefits to our nation. If that is too many, which one would you like me to stick to?

(Bold Added)

I understand about adding up the negatives ... I disagree that we should ignore the positive returns ... Not that I've had much luck even getting you to admit that ANY positives even exist.

The positive return is part of it ... to ignore ... or pretend it doesn't exist ... is just not an accurate analysis.

Even if the only positive you see for all the taxation is national defense ... that is still a positive ... and to be accurate ... as a positive it should be included in the analysis.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

People are not equal. Is that unfair?

No.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

That is more along the lines of a set of criteria for evaluating a system of taxation - and begs the question, "least negative impact in what way?"

Another good question... and there are a variety of different ways to look at it... easily a very large debate in itself.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The two are inextricably bound, for that is the justification / rationalization given for 75% of our Governmental expenditures.

The amount of negative things that exist does not change nor effect my point that positive does exist.

Separately ... the amount of positive and the amount of negative ... are both relevant to other larger scale questions ... but not the smaller scale point I've been struggling here with you on ... at there exist ANY positive returns at all from Taxation, and those positives are part of an accurate analysis.

[david85]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Not what I have been trying to get at at all... I don't know how you got that impression?

Right here:

Originally Posted by IamIan

... if it were 100% equal than it would not take sides with the killer and the victim ... it would not take sides with the attacking enemy country and the defending citizen ... to take a side means you are not 100% equal or free anymore ... one person or side is benefiting more than the other ... one is being more restricted than the other.

So , I don't think it is about 100% equality ... I think it is about us as a society making choices about who and what to side with... and how we want to do so.

(my bold)