How Do You See on the Left Side of the Classroom?
Dec 15th, 2009 | By Anthony De Maio | Category: Featured, Morning Whiskey
Part I: Taxes
I propose that “taxes” are money extracted from the people for the purpose of running the government and providing for the common good. As such, it would make sense that to provide the maximum “common good,” the maximum amount of revenue should be generated. (I shall not address how the tax money is ACTUALLY spent, and I shall only consider “income taxes.”)
The obvious question is: “What rate of taxation should be applied in order to achieve maximum revenue?”
A superficial response would be, “The maximum possible.” A little thought will show this to be incorrect. Consider a 100% income tax. Very little revenue would be obtained, since no one would work if all of their income were taken from them in taxes. In like manner, a 0% tax would achieve no revenue since NO tax would be taken. The “revenue curve” looks like an “inverted U,” or perhaps a “bell curve.” Clearly, some percentage “in between” must be the desired number/percentage. I believe no one knows that number — i.e., it is unknown.
Let us consider some “standard” economic assumptions:
- People work for a salary — as many hours as they wish.
- People play and receive no economic benefit for doing so.
- People would rather play than work.
Let us now consider a lawyer who wishes to have a load of firewood. Consider:
- The lawyer makes $100/hr.
- The wood costs $100.
- The tax rate is 90%.
- The lawyer can cut and split the wood himself in 5 hours.
The lawyer has two choices. He can work and make enough money to purchase the wood, or he can cut the wood himself. In order to purchase the wood, the lawyer must work for 10 hours and make $1,000 in order to pay the taxes of 90% and have $100 left over to purchase the wood. On the other hand, the lawyer can go out and cut the wood himself in 5 hours, and have 5 hours “left over” to “play.” The choice is obvious. At this tax rate, the government receives no tax revenue.
Let us now consider a tax rate of 50%. Under this assumption, the lawyer need work only TWO hours to make $200, pay the taxes of $100, and he will have $100 left over to purchase the wood. The lawyer will have 3 hours “left over” to “play.” The person selling the wood will be paid $100. Under this tax rate, the government will receive $150 in taxes-$100 from the lawyer and $50 from the wood supplier. An additional gain is that the woodsman has an “extra” $50 which he can use to purchase goods and services which will generate an additional $25 in taxes.
For the above example, the “break even” tax rate for the attorney is 80%, where he works 5 hours either way. The “best” tax rate will vary from person to person and task to task, but there IS SOME (UNKNOWN) OVERALL OPTIMUM RATE FOR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.
The above example is an explanation of why LOWERING the tax rate may actually result in MORE revenue — in spite of the ignorant claims that “It makes no sense.” Clearly, it does not HAVE to work as it depends upon where the present tax rate exists on the curve relative to the optimum rate-but it DOES “make sense.” People who claim otherwise are grossly ignorant of economic theory.
Part II: Inflation
Consider a population of people such that each has $1,000. They trade with each other and there are just enough goods and services to survive. At the end of the month, each person ends up with $1,000-and the cycle is repeated. Suppose the government imposes a 50% tax on this population, and removes $500 from each person. What effect would that have on the standard of living of the population? If you think about it, it will have NO impact — all prices will simply be halved. In like manner, doubling the amount of money available to each person will simply double the price of everything. There would be no change in the standard of living.
Let us now consider a situation where only SOME of the population is given $2,000. Clearly, these people are at an advantage in that they can purchase MORE goods and services than their neighbors. In doing so, they drive the price up to where their neighbors will suffer a decreased standard of living. Clearly, when the government infuses money into a certain segment of the economy (stimulus), it benefits that part of the economy. Due to the influx of money, prices in all sectors of the economy rise as those who “benefit” drive prices up as they spend the money.
Consider a “benign” 3% inflation rate. Over a three-year period, the cumulative inflation will be about 10% (with compounding). Intuitively, one would think that one needs a 10% raise over three years to accommodate that inflation. Such is NOT the case-for (at least) two reasons:
1. Unless you receive your raise at the “start” of the inflation cycle, you must tap into your “reserves” as prices rise UNTIL you get your raise. At that time, you are “back to where you started,” but you suffered a decreased standard of living up to that time or an unrecoverable monetary loss. (Of course, if you receive your raise at the START of the cycle, you are “ahead” in some sense. Since the government is “creating” the money it is always at the “start” of the cycle, and thus always benefits.)
2. Due to our tax structure, most people pay about 50% in taxes. (How much of your last raise did you actually see?) Since you pay your bills with after tax dollars, you will need a raise of 20% in order to have 10% left over to pay your bills. This is quite insidious as will be described in Part III.
Part III: Minimum Wage
I do not enjoy “picking on” minimum wage folks, however they are the best example. In trades, businesses, services, etc. management and labor “come together” and “share” the profits. In some cases labor chooses to reduce their “share” because the business is not doing well. Labor would much rather have a job that paid less than have no job. Minimum wage is “different,” as it is imposed by the government regardless of the effect on the business and with no negotiation.
One of my left wing friends once said that he would “Not mind paying a nickel more for a hamburger so that the employee could make $1.00/hr more.” My first thought was, “Why don’t YOU pay TEN cents more and I’ll keep paying what I’m paying now. Why do you think you can speak for me?”
My second thought was, “Let’s look at the numbers.” In order for the person to make $1/hr more, the owner is going to have to pay about $2/hr more due to benefits, social security, medicare, unemployment, disability, leave time, etc. Thus, the employer is going to pay $2/hr more so that the employee can get a raise of $1/hr and realize a raise of $ .50/hr more after taxes.
The next thing that comes to mind is that to simply “break even,” in order to pay that $2/hr, that employee is going to have to sell about 40 hamburgers PER HOUR at 5 cents additional cost per hamburger. Furthermore, for every employee at the cash register, there are (at least) two (and more likely three) employees in back preparing the food. Thus, at a nickel per hamburger more, that store is going to have to sell about 150 hamburgers PER HOUR-if there is only one person at the counter. I suggest this is highly unlikely. It always amazes me how people can pull numbers and “facts” right out of thin air to support what they think is “right,” and then IMPOSE THAT SITUATION UPON OTHERS WITH IMPUNITY AS THEY WILL SUFFER NO ILL EFFECTS REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS; AND THEY NEVER LOOK BACK TO SEE THE HAVOC AND DEVASTATION THEY HAVE CAUSED. When confronted with the results of their actions, invariably the response is, “Well, you’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” Funny thing, they are always talking about someone else’s eggs.
Let us consider a more general case. In general, small business must make about 20% profits to survive. The “high” profit is necessary because of the high risk-with something like 80% of the small businesses failing in the first five years. Now, in order to give an employee a $1.00/hr raise, it will cost the employer about $2.00/hr (as stated above). In order to “break even,” the employee must sell an additional $10/hr of goods/services, or about $80/day. (If one assumes a 10% profit margin, then the employee must sell $160 more per day.) Such is unlikely to happen, so the employer must raise prices in order to accommodate the pay raise. He cannot simply raise the prices by the amount of the pay raise because of his increased costs beyond the raise-he must raise prices by (at least) DOUBLE the amount of the pay raise. (Of course, depending upon the business, the employer’s wholesale costs may also rise because of the increase in minimum wage, which may result in greater price increases in order to maintain the profit margin.)
Interestingly enough, while the employer is raising his prices by (at least) TWICE the pay raise, the employee is seeing only HALF the pay raise because of taxes. As the price increases reverberate throughout the economy, it can cause some hardships — on the very people it was designed to help. Because of their “pay raise,” the employees actually “lose ground,” so demand a higher wage-and a new cycle begins.
Consider that typically product costs are 2/3 labor. If a merchant increases his labor costs 20% (10% to the employee, 10% in benefits/taxes), then the price of the product will increase by 2/3 of 20% or about 14%. The employee will receive a 10% raise, of which he will “see” 5% due to taxes. As such, product prices will increase by 14% and the employee’s wages will increase by 5%. This presumes no increase in raw materials costs due to a general minimum wage hike.
It is even more sinister in that because the minimum wage folks get their money “first” in some sense, they believe they are “getting ahead,” but as the effects permeate the economy, they gradually lose ground without realizing it. As previously stated, quite insidious.
Part IV: Conclusion
The careful reader will note that I have placed no “value judgment” upon this situation. I have simply taken what I consider to be “reality” and described it through numbers. What is most interesting is the reaction I get when I state the contents of this paper to left-wingers. It ranges from, “That’s not true,” to “I don’t believe it,” to “You’re a brainwashed neo-con.”
When I attempt to converse with such people, they often scream, shout, and launch personal attacks. They will not (can not?) address the underlying rational discourse. I cannot state that my statements are true — I can state that they have yet to be refuted.
Regards,
Tony De Maio
December 15, 2009
ShareThis
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ron Simon and Agora Financial, Whiskey Gunpowder. Whiskey Gunpowder said: How Do You See on the Left Side of the Classroom?: Part I: Taxes I propose that “taxes” are money extracted fro… http://bit.ly/4uOaWh [...]
You sure the amounts are right??
The wood costs $100.
The tax rate is 90%.
That means the tax would be 90 dollars, total of 190, NOT “the lawyer must work for 10 hours and make $1,000 in order to pay the taxes of 90% and have $100 left over to purchase the wood”
in the second example
“Let us now consider a tax rate of 50%. Under this assumption, the lawyer need work only TWO hours to make $200, pay the taxes of $100, and he will have $100 left over to purchase the wood”
at a tax rate of 50%, the taxes are 50 dollars, total of 150, not the “taxes of $100″
sir:
Part 1–you have reinvented the Laffer curve
Part 2–you have restated the obvious principle that inflation benefits those with first access to money.
Part 3–you have restated a simple accounting concept normally covered in the first semester of any undergraduate business curriculum.
And this is controversial because; why?
jm
Unfortunately, a little over half the country do not understand the simple and the obvious, but, controversially, they do claim enough wisdom to control and regulate the availability of credit, the profitable manufacture of automobiles, the economical and efficient delivery of our nation’s health care, and, with the hubris typical of ignorance, they even go so far as to claim the power to control the very changes in the planet’s weather.
Tony, dear…you are a superb example of my rule, “Just because something is easy to understand and written amusingly does NOT, necessarily, mean that it is not perfectly correct.” You never leave anything out, always put the principles in the correct order, and express your points vividly. I expect to see “Tony’s Fabulous Fables” hit the #1 non-fiction best seller list in time for next Christmas. Keep tap-dancing, Gwendolyn; we TOLD you you would be a big star. We’re very proud of you. Hugs, Linda
McNamys
I’m not sure I understand your point.
If the lawyer is to have a hundred dollars to purchase the wood and is paying a marginal tax of 90%, then clearly he must earn $1,000, pay $900 tax, and have $100 to pay for the wood.
If he makes $100/hr, he must work 10 hours to make that $1,000.
always,
tony
Jay,
Part 1–you have reinvented the Laffer curve
Part 2–you have restated the obvious principle that inflation benefits those with first access to money.
Part 3–you have restated a simple accounting concept normally covered in the first semester of any undergraduate business curriculum.
1. No, I didn’t reinvent the Laffer curve, I merely tried to explain it in simple terms and bring it to a wider audience. Given the violent debate about lowering taxes and raising revenue being “idiotic”, I suspect most don’t know or appreciate it.
2. Yes, that’s true, however the link between that and the minimum wage is not often appreciated.
3. Few folks have taken the first course in a college BA curriculum. If more folks had been exposed to simple economic concepts, this country would not be in the shape it is today.
always,
tony
McNamys,
The light dawns.
You are looking at the hourly wages and I am considering the total amount earned.
Hence, on $100, the taxes ARE (as you state) $90 at 90% tax rate and $50 PER HOUR on each hour at 50% tax rate.
always,
tony
LOL what a pontification of B.S. The only legitimite taxes are excise taxes. Anything else is a redistribution of wealth and is slavery. As soon as the gov’t stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
hard2believe,
1. While I somewhat agree with you, I have found that it is best to take the situation as it is and work to change it. It does little good to wish the situation was different.
2. My own personal opinion is that use taxes are legitimate. The above does not address “fairness” or “legitimacy”, only effects. I suspect the effects would be the same no matter the vehicle used to collect the taxes.
3. I searched in vain for many years for a “fair tax”. For many of those years, I found not the holy grail, but the golden fleece. Then, one day, the following occurred to me.
If you desire a “fair” tax, I suggest you consider:
a. assumption: everyone (citizen) is equal before the law.
b. assumption: everyone (citizen) is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country in terms of rights and privileges.
c. If everyone is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country, then clearly each citizen should pay equally for that privilege, since they obtain the same “product”.
Obviously, a head tax, with each person paying an equal amount, would be a “fair tax”.
always,
tony
tony-
i understand your points and largely agree. However, I assume, rightly I hope, that readers of this web site are too knowledgeable to need Business Principles 101. If readers of W&G need explanations of such relatively simple ideas, then our straits are even more dire than I had supposed.
jay
b. assumption: everyone (citizen) is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country in terms of rights and privileges.
~Sorry I’m not a communist. I guess you’re trying to confuse the legitimate purpose of government equitably protecting everyone’s freedom with some entitlement to an amount of wealth or other people’s property.~
c. If everyone is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country, then clearly each citizen should pay equally for that privilege, since they obtain the same “product”.
~See #1~
in addition, there are no “priviledges” in a free country when it comes to rights. A priviledge would be something along the lines of forming a corporation and relieving yourself of some of the liability that an unincorporated business owner would be vulnerable to.
Government can’t provide rights, it can only take them away. You will clearly understand what is a right if you imagine there is no government at all. You’d have the right to work, to have private property, to travel freely, to be armed and defend your life and property, to speak your mind, etc.
You’d not have a right to take someone else’s property, to injure, kill, torture or enslave. Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Pretty simple.
Understanding this you can see why the only legitimate tax is an excise tax. It is a voluntary tax paid by the governed for the narrow and specific scope of government carrying out its desirable duties.
When the government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
Jay,
I hope you are right, I fear you are wrong.
In writing that paper, some things occurred to me that are not obvious.
For one thing, here’s ploy for you. Walk up to any person and ask, “If inflation is 5%, what amount does your pay have to increase for you to break even?” Invariably, they say, “5%”. Few consider taxes.
Like my lefty friend that wanted to pay a nickle more for a hamburger so the employee could get $1/hr raise, few folks realize that if business costs go up, then store owners must increase THEIR costs based upon their MARKUP, not by the amount of increase. (Of course it’s more complicated that that, and an input/output model is far more accurate, but the example serves the purpose.)
You need only recall the debate about Bush lowering taxes to increase revenue to realize that the Laffer curve is NOT common knowledge. Most folks were at a total loss defending the action. Here are some bullets for them.
Finally, the initial article was not written for W & G folks, but for a more general population. Hopefully W & G is constantly getting “new blood”. If not, then p’haps the W & G folks may be able to use the arguments in discussions with family/friends.
always,
tony
b. assumption: everyone (citizen) is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country in terms of rights and privileges.
~Sorry I’m not a communist. I guess you’re trying to confuse the legitimate purpose of government equitably protecting everyone’s freedom with some entitlement to an amount of wealth or other people’s property.~
————————————————————————————————
One of us is confused. I did not say “to each according to their need” nor “from each according to their ability”.
I stated an EQUAL amount to each person–regardless of their status.
=====================================================
c. If everyone is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country, then clearly each citizen should pay equally for that privilege, since they obtain the same “product”.
~See #1~
——————————————————————————————————
Again, pay equally–not pay according to his means
==============================================================
in addition, there are no “priviledges” in a free country when it comes to rights. A priviledge would be something along the lines of forming a corporation and relieving yourself of some of the liability that an unincorporated business owner would be vulnerable to.
————————————————————————————-
Call it what you wish–right, benefit, privillege, etc., it makes little difference to the thesis of the argument.
==========================================================
Government can’t provide rights, it can only take them away. You will clearly understand what is a right if you imagine there is no government at all. You’d have the right to work, to have private property, to travel freely, to be armed and defend your life and property, to speak your mind, etc.
——————————————————————————————–
Aktually, the only “rights” you would have would be those you could exercise. Any roving gang can easily remove your right to private property. Fundamentally, that’s why folks “organize”–for mutual protection of those “rights” or “privilleges” or “wazoos” they deem important enough to protect.
================================================================
You’d not have a right to take someone else’s property, to injure, kill, torture or enslave. Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Pretty simple.
—————————————————————————————————
Actually, it’s not so simple. While you can easily come up with many examples where it is “easy”, you need only review some of the supreme court’s decisions to realize that it can become quite complex and difficult. For example, can your neighbor maintain a dung pile which you can smell from your property? May he practice his trombone at 2 a.m. on his property?
=============================================
Understanding this you can see why the only legitimate tax is an excise tax. It is a voluntary tax paid by the governed for the narrow and specific scope of government carrying out its desirable duties.
When the government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
————————————————————————————–
The government “takes” all the time. The draft is classic “slavery”. The gubbermint takes property all the time through emminent domain. Even the constitution provides for “postal roads”, and taxes to provide them. In MY world, all citizens have equal access to those roads. The gubbermint provides for a court system. In MY world, all have equal access to that court system. (Perhaps “should have” would be more accurate.)
‘pears to me that if folks are getting identical products, they should pay the same price for them. For some reason, I don’t want to go into a grocery store, buy a loaf of bread, and be charged on the basis of how much I make. If folks are NOT getting “equal access”, it strikes me that we should work on the problem of unequal “distribution”, not charge different rates based upon some perceived notion that we can charge differentially based upon our notion of how great the differences are.
always,
tony
b. assumption: everyone (citizen) is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country in terms of rights and privileges.
~Sorry I’m not a communist. I guess you’re trying to confuse the legitimate purpose of government equitably protecting everyone’s freedom with some entitlement to an amount of wealth or other people’s property.~
————————————————————————————————
One of us is confused. I did not say “to each according to their need”
I stated an EQUAL amount to each person–regardless of their status.
=====================================================
c. If everyone is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country, then clearly each citizen should pay equally for that privilege, since they obtain the same “product”.
~See #1~
——————————————————————————————————
nor did I state “from each according to their ability
Again, pay equally–not pay according to his needs
I refer to whatever benefits accrue to the individual from being associated with government. This might be something as simple as “mutual defense”–and ONLY mutual defense.
==============================================================
in addition, there are no “priviledges” in a free country when it comes to rights. A priviledge would be something along the lines of forming a corporation and relieving yourself of some of the liability that an unincorporated business owner would be vulnerable to.
————————————————————————————-
Call it what you wish–right, benefit, privillege, etc., it makes little difference to the thesis of the argument. Heck, call it a wazoo.
==========================================================
Government can’t provide rights, it can only take them away. You will clearly understand what is a right if you imagine there is no government at all. You’d have the right to work, to have private property, to travel freely, to be armed and defend your life and property, to speak your mind, etc.
——————————————————————————————–
Aktually, the only “rights” you would have would be those you could exercise. Any roving gang can easily remove your right to private property. Fundamentally, that’s why folks “organize”–for mutual protection of those “rights” or “privilleges” or “wazoos” they deem important enough to protect.
================================================================
You’d not have a right to take someone else’s property, to injure, kill, torture or enslave. Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Pretty simple.
—————————————————————————————————
Actually, it’s not so simple. While you can easily come up with many examples where it is “easy”, you need only review some of the supreme court’s decisions to realize that it can become quite complex and difficult. For example, can your neighbor maintain a dung pile which you can smell from your property? May he practice his trombone at 2 a.m. on his property?
Those are the “easy ones”. What happens when one “right” conflicts with another? Does your “free speech” allow for blasting your views through a PA system at 2 a.m.? or blasting “hate speech”?
=============================================
Understanding this you can see why the only legitimate tax is an excise tax. It is a voluntary tax paid by the governed for the narrow and specific scope of government carrying out its desirable duties.
When the government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
————————————————————————————–
The government “takes” all the time. The draft is classic “slavery”. In MY world, ALL citizens would have to serve if ANY were required to serve. (equal pay) The gubbermint takes property all the time through emminent domain. Even our constitution provides for “postal roads”, and taxes to provide them. In MY world, all citizens have equal access to those roads. The gubbermint provides for a court system. In MY world, all have equal access to that court system.
‘pears to me that if folks are getting identical products, they should pay the same price for them. For some reason, I don’t want to go into a grocery store, buy a loaf of bread, and be charged on the basis of how much I make–or how much the clerk THINKS I make.
If folks are NOT getting “equal access”, it strikes me that we should work on the problem of “unequal distribution”, not charge different rates based upon some perceived notion that we can charge differentially based upon our notion of how great the differences are.
================================================================
Incidently: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An excise or excise tax (sometimes called a duty of excise or a special tax) may be defined broadly as an inland tax on the production or sale of a good,[1] or narrowly as a tax on a good produced within the country. Excises are distinguished from customs duties, which are taxes on importation. Excises, whether broadly defined or narrowly defined, are inland taxes, whereas customs duties are border taxes.
Why do you believe such taxes are “voluntary”?
always,
tony
hard2believe,
I don’t understand why an excise is any more legitimate than a tarriff or an income tax or a sales tax. How is an excise tax voluntary. It doesn’t seem to me that people choose to have their cigarettes or whiskey taxed. Please explain.
Thomas Jefferson, I believe, said the only fair tax was a government lottery, because it is purely voluntary.
Bill
An excise tax is voluntary becasue you can avoid paying the tax. When you get a P.O.S. wanna be fascist tyranny like 2009 USA, citizens can simply shut it down by forgoing their booze and butts until the malicious gov’t they fund withers away. Excise taxes place the governed in control of the purse. Income tax, and any tax which is unavoidable, places control of the purse into the goverments hands. Not to mention the fact that if the gov’t can “take” 1% of your income, it can “take” 100%.
You’ll wind up like Tony trying to argue the nuances of tyranny, what is the best case scenario for the people in the tyranny, and never figure out that the gov’t system is just a tyranny with the people begging to keep it at a 50% tyranny, and the government constantly trying to incrementally increase the level of tyranny to 100%
I don’t want the tyranny at all. That is the point. There are other options to 50% tyranny besides more tyranny.
When all else fails, we could try freedom.
When the gov’t stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
http://www.cashistrash.webs.com
Dear Jay: It never hurts to state principles when giving new examples, and we do get new readers all the time. When we take a few extra sentences to cross the T that is “obvious” to US and dot an “insignificant” I for them they get into the “arguments” more quickly and begin to contribute.. They learn faster, become interested, and put out new thoughts for us while organizing their lives and minds better. Rule: everyone I meet probably knows or can do something I would like to master or learn, and if I am nice to them and take time to listen many of them tell/teach me. Mind, people are like peanuts: some have more nuts in their hulls than others.
The articles on W&G are important and informative, but our exchanges below them are where the work begins. We inspire each others, and I am coming to hope that a few of us will be fortunate enough to form friendships that have practical benefits. I don’t know a better place to find others who share our interests-which span multiple universes. If even a few of us can band together when “if” comes into being…smile…at least we few will be safer.
I recognize your handles, friends, and have a small request: don’t be just “j” when you could be “Jesuitical mind” or “Jules” or “Jemima.” Tony, ALWAYS a joy to read the questions you elicit and your answers.
Hugs, Linda
hard2believe,
Sorry to be so late with this. This is the fourth time I’ve tried to post it. For some reason, it doesn’t seem to “take”
Youse sed:
b. assumption: everyone (citizen) is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country in terms of rights and privileges.
~Sorry I’m not a communist. I guess you’re trying to confuse the legitimate purpose of government equitably protecting everyone’s freedom with some entitlement to an amount of wealth or other people’s property.~
————————————————————————————————
One of us is confused. I did not say “to each according to their need” nor “from each according to their ability”.
I stated an EQUAL amount to each person–regardless of their status. I don’t pretend to be able to define the “legitimate purpose of government”.
=====================================================
c. If everyone is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country, then clearly each citizen should pay equally for that privilege, since they obtain the same “product”.
~See #1~
——————————————————————————————————
Again, pay equally–not pay according to his means
==============================================================
in addition, there are no “priviledges” in a free country when it comes to rights. A priviledge would be something along the lines of forming a corporation and relieving yourself of some of the liability that an unincorporated business owner would be vulnerable to.
————————————————————————————-
Call it what you wish–right, benefit, privillege, etc., it makes little difference to the thesis of the argument. Call it wazoos if you wish.
==========================================================
Government can’t provide rights, it can only take them away. You will clearly understand what is a right if you imagine there is no government at all. You’d have the right to work, to have private property, to travel freely, to be armed and defend your life and property, to speak your mind, etc.
——————————————————————————————–
Aktually, the only “rights” you would have would be those you could exercise. Any roving gang can easily remove your right to private property and disarm you. Fundamentally, that’s why folks “organize”–for mutual protection of those “rights” or “privilleges” or “wazoos” they deem important enough to protect.
================================================================
You’d not have a right to take someone else’s property, to injure, kill, torture or enslave. Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Pretty simple.
—————————————————————————————————
Actually, it’s not so simple. While you can easily come up with many examples where it is “easy”, you need only review some of the supreme court’s decisions to realize that it can become quite complex and difficult. For example, can your neighbor maintain a dung pile which you can smell from your property? May he practice his trombone at 2 a.m. on his property?
=============================================
Understanding this you can see why the only legitimate tax is an excise tax. It is a voluntary tax paid by the governed for the narrow and specific scope of government carrying out its desirable duties.
When the government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
————————————————————————————–
The government “takes” all the time. The draft is classic “slavery”. In MY world, if there is a draft, EVERY ONE serves equally. The gubbermint takes property all the time through emminent domain. Even the constitution provides for “postal roads”, and taxes to provide them. In MY world, all citizens have equal access to those roads. The gubbermint provides for a court system. In MY world, all have equal access to that court system.
‘pears to me that if folks are getting identical products, they should pay the same price for them and it don’t make no never mind what those products are. (It’s one reason I used the term “bounty”.) For some reason, I don’t want to go into a grocery store, buy a loaf of bread, and be charged on the basis of how much I make. If folks are NOT getting “equal access”, it strikes me that we should work on the problem of “unequal distribution”, not charge different rates based upon some perceived notion that we can charge differentially based upon our notion of how great the differences are.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An excise or excise tax (sometimes called a duty of excise or a special tax) may be defined broadly as an inland tax on the production or sale of a good,[1] or narrowly as a tax on a good produced within the country. Excises are distinguished from customs duties, which are taxes on importation. Excises, whether broadly defined or narrowly defined, are inland taxes, whereas customs duties are border taxes.
As a previous writer asked, “How is this voluntary?”
If excise taxes are the same thing as “import duties”, are import duties “voluntary”?
always,
tony
What we need, and I have asked for without getting, is a way to keep up articles where we’re still discussing things happily, and let those without comment get voted off the island and disappear quietly into the archives. This is classic Tony. It is also classic, Tony. Linda
hard2believe,
I believe I see your point. If you have a choice of paying or not paying taxes, they can be considered “voluntary”.
As such income taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of working or not working. Property taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of owning property or not owning property. Sales taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of buying or not buying.
When I was growing up, we called such options “Hobson’s choice”. They were of the ilk, “You’re money or you’re life.” You have a choice there, also.
Matter of fact, ALL U.S. taxes are “voluntary” in that you may leave the country at your option.
always,
tony
hard2believe,
“I believe I see your point. If you have a choice of paying or not paying taxes, they can be considered “voluntary”.
As such income taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of working or not working. Property taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of owning property or not owning property. Sales taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of buying or not buying.
When I was growing up, we called such options “Hobson’s choice”. They were of the ilk, “You’re money or you’re life.” You have a choice there, also.
Matter of fact, ALL U.S. taxes are “voluntary” in that you may leave the country at your option.”
always,
tony
ROFLMAO – you have a choice of working or not working. Really?
It isn’t a “working” tax. It’s an “income” tax. You have a choice of having no income?
All property has tax on it. Do you have a choice of living somewhere other than property?
Maybe you can live on a boat with no income.
Good luck with that.
I think you have more “choices” than most of the world who must have an income, must work, and ignorantly assumes their labor is taxable and must pay extortion on their own property and/or business.
You’re very confused again
“Aktually, the only “rights” you would have would be those you could exercise. Any roving gang can easily remove your right to private property and disarm you. Fundamentally, that’s why folks “organize”–for mutual protection of those “rights” or “privilleges” or “wazoos” they deem important enough to protect.”
This is pointless. Saying you don’t have a right because a criminal can commit a crime violating your right is stangely so illogical it only proves my point. How can the criminal “roving gang” or more likely “roving government” violate your right, unless you have a right to violate?
Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Its very simple. I’m not worried about dung or trumpets, this article and this principle is in application to taxation. If you understand you don’t have the right to take someone else’s property – the taxation issue is crystal clear. If not, I guess you failed grade school.
When government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
The only dung I smell is in here.