Tweet
essay folloup
{soapbox}
i was kind of startled by the awkwardness and inconsistant answering pattern from some, but most notably on the very first question. . .
I didn't realise so many of this board's inhabitants we not interested in personal and economic freedom; that they were more comfortable with the government lording over their individual property and wealth rights rather than bear that responsibility on their own.
I'm not sure exactly why this is, however. I think its a cluster of reasons, chiefly a sense of 'sticking it' to other people. It a natural tendancy we have as humans to begrudge others. I think people also don't fully understand their own viewpoints very clearly either. I think many politicians use this to their advantage too, and use this to help stuff the ballot box by pointing at their opponent and say they're the ones to blame for whats wrong. It could be any combination of these reasons, yet I think it boils down to one:
Perversion of the individual's rights. Right to work, right to property, right to accumulated wealth. The perception of the body of these things is being perverted and the net result of theses views becoming more widely accepted is a dependancy on the government to run individuals lives. This is the antithesis of bearing personal responsibility for your own life, equity, and ability.
You simply can't trust elected officials or council members to ever have the best interests of the individuals rights. They are grossly unbalanced in the direction of expanding government, taking in more tax revenue, and securing their own jobs. However, they veil this effect and intent under the guise of community improvement, civil programs, and other social agendas. The vast majority of politicians do not recognise the importance, or worse still, are actively trying to detract from the rights of the individual. This assault on personal liberty is from both democrats & liberals, as much as it is from republicans and conservatives. The only difference is the conservatives are moving slower down the same roads.
but for me, personally. . . .I simply can't understand why anyone would think one should pay more in taxes just because they can afford it. This is the most simple, most basic assault on personal and individual property and asset rights. You could imperically add any motive you want to this activity of taxing progressively just because you can afford it more than the next person, but that won't help to serve the basic reasoning behind why I think this is wrong.
The thinking that leads us to 'someone should pay more in taxes simply because they can afford it more than someone else' is ultimately self defeating. It bases itself on a fundamental idea that a right to property or assets belongs to someone other than the individual. It benefits only the expanding government, and the sense of satisfaction of those who pay fewer in taxes. Ultimately, you could argue it doesn't even truly benefit expanding government because the more taxes in place the more it stifles people from spending. But many politicians argue that it ultimately benefits everyone, which it doesn't.
To give a more approachable example of this practice, let us assume you're a home owner. If you already are, great. You've got a 3 bed, 2 bath home with a one car garage and a carport. You live there with your brother/roommate/girl and You own a nice Beretta GTZ and maybe an old Ranger. Now, you pay your annual property taxes, and your mortgage payment, and whatever other improvements come as needed. You also pay income tax on the money you make to pay the mortgage, and sales taxes on the plumber and the sheetrock to finish a wall in the garage. Things are kinda tight, but you own both cars outright, so you're still doing okay for yourself.
Then taxes come due, and in addition to assessing a property tax in your region, your home is inspected. Guess what? The government sees that you're not using one of those bedrooms and decides you should take on a boarder. The boarder is having "tough times" apparently, so you'll be boarding him free of rent. He's also going to use utilities, place wear and tear on your house, and generally not be responsible for anything on the premises.
Just because you can afford it. Why not? You're not using the extra room. You're not using all the toilets in the house at once.
They see you have 2 cars. Why do you have 2 cars? You can only drive one at a time. They tax you the other car. They make you pay the title, and any state required insurance, then the require you to give the key to a stranger so they can have a car.
Just because you can afford it. Why not? There's no reason for an individual to own more than one car. you don't need it.
Now then, If you don't think this is a fair comparison, please consider how these examples are perfectly tandem to a progressive-type tax on assets. Right now, the progressive tax expands through businesses and individual through the income tax and witholding system in place. It taxes actual cash liquid assets in these cases. Then, it takes that money and redistributes it among other people who didn't pay taxes. this is done one of two ways.
1: social dependancy programs. The tax revenue is used to cook up, or supplement new or existing government programs for the benefit of society. Usually such programs are set up in legislation to consume whatever money it can, and have wording built into them to self-renew without drawing a vote. Examples like Toll roads that are still open...
2: income redistribution. The tax revenue on one individual is then paid to someone else directly who did not pay the taxes to begin with. This currently is exercised through what most politicians call a "Tax Credit." Programs in place, both federal and state, use tax credits to take money directly from one group and give it to another. Example; you have a tax liability of $1000 you owe, and someone near you who makes the same, or maybe more, also has a $1,000 tax liability. Under a government program, you qualify for a $2,000 "tax credit," but your neighbor does not. So you have a 1000 dollar tax liability but you qualify for a 2000 dollar credit. Which means your 1000 tax liability goes away, and you get a refund/credit in the amount of 1000.
Where does this money come from? The people who can supposedly "afford it".
These programs include child tax credits, school tax credits, various family configuration credits(single dependant, live in, etc), income bracket credits... the list goes on and reads differently for every state.
How is this relevant to the example I gave? It is identical in form and function. Yet people seem to treat things differently when you classify assets as tangible or liquid. Why is that? You wouldn't let someone just take your second car without your permission, just on the basis that you have another car to drive and get around, why is your money any different? You wouldn't put up with someone forcing you to take a boarder for free just because you have a spare room that can fit a bed. why is it okay to say the same thing for the single guy up the road with no dependants just because he doesn't have as big a financial burden as the family down the lane?
The biggest problem here is that this is far worse than any supposed 'big business' tax cut that many politicians try to make people angry about. At the very least, the big business already paid the taxes in the first place. In these programs, however, the people benefiting from this never paid the tax in the first place, yet they get a free handout.
Of course, such people who ultimately benefit from this won't complain, and they'll vote any authority that promises to protect their stipend from the government(whos rolling on the taxpayers dime.) After all, They get free money and the 'rich people' are still doing just fine because they can afford it.... and the people who get this 'tax credit' outnumber the people who don't, so they can always out vote them. All the while, they become convinced that they have a right to this money at the direct expense of someone else.
Why is someone other than a cop, or serviceman, or civil servant in posession of a right to your money without any kind of permission from you?
The answer is because there has to be the mindset that wealth and assets are not actually earned. They're distributed. You don't produce your own wealth, it is rationed to you from a finite source. And if someone else has more than you, then it's not fair. If you want to keep more of what you earn, then its greed.
This is how elections are won. Voltaire said, "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other."
Because if you want to actually keep the money you earn you're greedy, but if you want to take money from other people and you've never actually earned it, what does that make you?
This is the assault on economic liberty. It is being capitalised by opportunistic politicians on both 'sides' of the fence. You do not have the right to another individuals money.
But what do I know.
{/soapbox}[/b]
{soapbox}
i was kind of startled by the awkwardness and inconsistant answering pattern from some, but most notably on the very first question. . .
I didn't realise so many of this board's inhabitants we not interested in personal and economic freedom; that they were more comfortable with the government lording over their individual property and wealth rights rather than bear that responsibility on their own.
I'm not sure exactly why this is, however. I think its a cluster of reasons, chiefly a sense of 'sticking it' to other people. It a natural tendancy we have as humans to begrudge others. I think people also don't fully understand their own viewpoints very clearly either. I think many politicians use this to their advantage too, and use this to help stuff the ballot box by pointing at their opponent and say they're the ones to blame for whats wrong. It could be any combination of these reasons, yet I think it boils down to one:
Perversion of the individual's rights. Right to work, right to property, right to accumulated wealth. The perception of the body of these things is being perverted and the net result of theses views becoming more widely accepted is a dependancy on the government to run individuals lives. This is the antithesis of bearing personal responsibility for your own life, equity, and ability.
You simply can't trust elected officials or council members to ever have the best interests of the individuals rights. They are grossly unbalanced in the direction of expanding government, taking in more tax revenue, and securing their own jobs. However, they veil this effect and intent under the guise of community improvement, civil programs, and other social agendas. The vast majority of politicians do not recognise the importance, or worse still, are actively trying to detract from the rights of the individual. This assault on personal liberty is from both democrats & liberals, as much as it is from republicans and conservatives. The only difference is the conservatives are moving slower down the same roads.
but for me, personally. . . .I simply can't understand why anyone would think one should pay more in taxes just because they can afford it. This is the most simple, most basic assault on personal and individual property and asset rights. You could imperically add any motive you want to this activity of taxing progressively just because you can afford it more than the next person, but that won't help to serve the basic reasoning behind why I think this is wrong.
The thinking that leads us to 'someone should pay more in taxes simply because they can afford it more than someone else' is ultimately self defeating. It bases itself on a fundamental idea that a right to property or assets belongs to someone other than the individual. It benefits only the expanding government, and the sense of satisfaction of those who pay fewer in taxes. Ultimately, you could argue it doesn't even truly benefit expanding government because the more taxes in place the more it stifles people from spending. But many politicians argue that it ultimately benefits everyone, which it doesn't.
To give a more approachable example of this practice, let us assume you're a home owner. If you already are, great. You've got a 3 bed, 2 bath home with a one car garage and a carport. You live there with your brother/roommate/girl and You own a nice Beretta GTZ and maybe an old Ranger. Now, you pay your annual property taxes, and your mortgage payment, and whatever other improvements come as needed. You also pay income tax on the money you make to pay the mortgage, and sales taxes on the plumber and the sheetrock to finish a wall in the garage. Things are kinda tight, but you own both cars outright, so you're still doing okay for yourself.
Then taxes come due, and in addition to assessing a property tax in your region, your home is inspected. Guess what? The government sees that you're not using one of those bedrooms and decides you should take on a boarder. The boarder is having "tough times" apparently, so you'll be boarding him free of rent. He's also going to use utilities, place wear and tear on your house, and generally not be responsible for anything on the premises.
Just because you can afford it. Why not? You're not using the extra room. You're not using all the toilets in the house at once.
They see you have 2 cars. Why do you have 2 cars? You can only drive one at a time. They tax you the other car. They make you pay the title, and any state required insurance, then the require you to give the key to a stranger so they can have a car.
Just because you can afford it. Why not? There's no reason for an individual to own more than one car. you don't need it.
Now then, If you don't think this is a fair comparison, please consider how these examples are perfectly tandem to a progressive-type tax on assets. Right now, the progressive tax expands through businesses and individual through the income tax and witholding system in place. It taxes actual cash liquid assets in these cases. Then, it takes that money and redistributes it among other people who didn't pay taxes. this is done one of two ways.
1: social dependancy programs. The tax revenue is used to cook up, or supplement new or existing government programs for the benefit of society. Usually such programs are set up in legislation to consume whatever money it can, and have wording built into them to self-renew without drawing a vote. Examples like Toll roads that are still open...
2: income redistribution. The tax revenue on one individual is then paid to someone else directly who did not pay the taxes to begin with. This currently is exercised through what most politicians call a "Tax Credit." Programs in place, both federal and state, use tax credits to take money directly from one group and give it to another. Example; you have a tax liability of $1000 you owe, and someone near you who makes the same, or maybe more, also has a $1,000 tax liability. Under a government program, you qualify for a $2,000 "tax credit," but your neighbor does not. So you have a 1000 dollar tax liability but you qualify for a 2000 dollar credit. Which means your 1000 tax liability goes away, and you get a refund/credit in the amount of 1000.
Where does this money come from? The people who can supposedly "afford it".
These programs include child tax credits, school tax credits, various family configuration credits(single dependant, live in, etc), income bracket credits... the list goes on and reads differently for every state.
How is this relevant to the example I gave? It is identical in form and function. Yet people seem to treat things differently when you classify assets as tangible or liquid. Why is that? You wouldn't let someone just take your second car without your permission, just on the basis that you have another car to drive and get around, why is your money any different? You wouldn't put up with someone forcing you to take a boarder for free just because you have a spare room that can fit a bed. why is it okay to say the same thing for the single guy up the road with no dependants just because he doesn't have as big a financial burden as the family down the lane?
The biggest problem here is that this is far worse than any supposed 'big business' tax cut that many politicians try to make people angry about. At the very least, the big business already paid the taxes in the first place. In these programs, however, the people benefiting from this never paid the tax in the first place, yet they get a free handout.
Of course, such people who ultimately benefit from this won't complain, and they'll vote any authority that promises to protect their stipend from the government(whos rolling on the taxpayers dime.) After all, They get free money and the 'rich people' are still doing just fine because they can afford it.... and the people who get this 'tax credit' outnumber the people who don't, so they can always out vote them. All the while, they become convinced that they have a right to this money at the direct expense of someone else.
Why is someone other than a cop, or serviceman, or civil servant in posession of a right to your money without any kind of permission from you?
The answer is because there has to be the mindset that wealth and assets are not actually earned. They're distributed. You don't produce your own wealth, it is rationed to you from a finite source. And if someone else has more than you, then it's not fair. If you want to keep more of what you earn, then its greed.
This is how elections are won. Voltaire said, "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other."
Because if you want to actually keep the money you earn you're greedy, but if you want to take money from other people and you've never actually earned it, what does that make you?
This is the assault on economic liberty. It is being capitalised by opportunistic politicians on both 'sides' of the fence. You do not have the right to another individuals money.
But what do I know.
{/soapbox}[/b]
:P
Nothing worth having an aneurism about.
Comment