You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 07:08:22 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Join the Online Tax Revolt  (Read 5849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #75 on: May 01, 2010, 07:13:49 PM »
Quote from: Vekseid
It has to include a central standard because of the three+ way arbitrages you were mentioning. It's not like I wasn't aware of that.

What kind of central standard are you talking about? I don't understand what it has to do with triangular arbitrage.

Quote from: Vekseid
An energy production standard, rather than an Easter basket standard (gold/silver/coal/whatever), basically.

It's possible - if this is what you mean - to peg a currency to a basket of energy prices. No one does this because the value of consumer goods is based upon much more than the value of energy. Labor, commodities, -and- energy. Which is why we prefer the Easter basket.

Quote from: Vekseid
You can have a physical chip store a unique key pair, lose it, and take a new one just fine. The nice thing about numbers is that there are an infinite number of them.

The issue about arbitrage is that markets are segmented. Someone in Dubai needs dollars in Dubai. Someone in New York needs dollars in New York. RFID, whatever - if it requires physical delivery this is the case, and it creates an arbitrage opportunity because these markets are separate.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #76 on: May 01, 2010, 07:28:10 PM »
What kind of central standard are you talking about? I don't understand what it has to do with triangular arbitrage.

All currency prices coming from a singular base. Rather than buy euros with yen, you sell your yen and buy the euros.

Quote
It's possible - if this is what you mean - to peg a currency to a basket of energy prices. No one does this because the value of consumer goods is based upon much more than the value of energy. Labor, commodities, -and- energy. Which is why we prefer the Easter basket.

For now anyway. I don't really think of it as something that would be implemented in a decade or three.

Quote
The issue about arbitrage is that markets are segmented. Someone in Dubai needs dollars in Dubai. Someone in New York needs dollars in New York. RFID, whatever - if it requires physical delivery this is the case, and it creates an arbitrage opportunity because these markets are separate.

The physical tokens are already present. They can make more on site as they need them. Activate and deactivate as necessary.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #77 on: May 01, 2010, 07:41:50 PM »
Quote from: Vekseid
All currency prices coming from a singular base. Rather than buy euros with yen, you sell your yen and buy the euros.

A) We had that for thirty years, and it fell apart
B) I don't know why you expect this to prevent triangular arbitrage, because it didn't when we had it.

Quote from: Vekseid
The physical tokens are already present. They can make more on site as they need them. Activate and deactivate as necessary.

Wait - you're going to activate and deactivate the money in people's pockets? So I take money out of the ATM (or a bank takes money from the Fed) and they don't know if it's worth anything or not?

Offline Vekseid

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #78 on: May 01, 2010, 08:15:40 PM »
A) We had that for thirty years, and it fell apart

...there are some rather overwhelming differences between energy and gold. I think you shot down the shiny rock standard fairly well elsewhere - why would it apply to something that we are constantly producing more of and can transmit nearly instantly?

Quote
Wait - you're going to activate and deactivate the money in people's pockets? So I take money out of the ATM (or a bank takes money from the Fed) and they don't know if it's worth anything or not?

Nothing of the sort. It's just a reflection on what's going to have to happen with our physical currency in the next few decades anyway - the ability to immediately and securely tell which currency is legitimate, what isn't, and how much a pile of it is worth.

Keeping the wealth with the physical token in that case versus letting people print their own money and assigning value to it is mostly just a question of privacy versus security.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #79 on: May 01, 2010, 09:03:49 PM »
Quote from: Vekseid
...there are some rather overwhelming differences between energy and gold. I think you shot down the shiny rock standard fairly well elsewhere - why would it apply to something that we are constantly producing more of and can transmit nearly instantly?

Energy is only one part of what people consume - again, the stuff you consume is a product of labor, land, energy, commodities, etc. And the underlying of all of these - I think - ought to be labor and talent. Paying people for energy (and I come from Texas where we make some money on oil) is just paying the bastards you and I both don't want to be paid for owning an arbitrary plot of land.

Quote from: Vekseid
Nothing of the sort. It's just a reflection on what's going to have to happen with our physical currency in the next few decades anyway - the ability to immediately and securely tell which currency is legitimate, what isn't, and how much a pile of it is worth.

Keeping the wealth with the physical token in that case versus letting people print their own money and assigning value to it is mostly just a question of privacy versus security.

Fine, but as you have physical currency you have arbitrage.

And my sorry ass has a job, thank you. :)

Offline Zakharra

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #80 on: May 03, 2010, 03:33:18 PM »
How is that seriously screwed up? I see a clear difference between the person who earns the money and the person who simply has it and contributes nothing to society.

 So? It's their money. You're wanting to punish someone who you think isn't working. Is that person spending money? Yes. It just doesn't sit there completely unused. Some is spent. How much would vary from person to person and change over time. What they do with the money is their own business.

Quote
That's exactly what I want - the kind of person who's able to earn $10 million at a young age should have an incentive to keep working. Those are the most talented and productive people in the world.

 No. You would be forcing someone to work when they wouldn't want to. That person might have decided they made enough money that year and retire to live comfortably for the rest of their life (or until they either get bored or find something else that interests them that they want to make money from). That person might have had a goal and met it. Why should they be forced to work when they have made the money they want legally?


Quote
I'm not so concerned with how much money a person earns as that there is an incentive to work. Someone who has a trust fund that gets him $60K a year without lifting a finger is as offensive to me as someone who has a trust fund that gives him a $1M a year.

 Again, you're penalizing success. WHY should that person be forced to work?  Why should you care? The trust fund money is spent no matter what. How they spend it isn't our concern or business. As long as someone cares for the money, or even if no one cares for it, who cares? If it's spent unwisely, the person will have to find work sooner or later.

 Basically, if someone wants to work, they can. If they have to work to earn a living, they will. If they can work, but don't need to, they shouldn't be made to.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #81 on: May 03, 2010, 05:27:20 PM »
You're generally forgetting that if someone has the drive to make $10mil by the age of 20 or whatever, they often have their own drive to continue innovating.

Just sayin', guys. :P

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #82 on: May 03, 2010, 06:52:28 PM »
I happen to support the government being sure every citizen and legal resident has a roof over their head, clothing, food, shelter, education and health care at an adequete level and should tax accordingly to meet this need. A freedom from want that is equal to other freedoms and may be more important.

What good is freedom of speech when your homless with rain falling on you and your belly is empty, its a luxury for such a person? Now if that person has a small room, a full belly, access to health care and other needs of their body then they are free to enjoy other freedoms more fully.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #83 on: May 04, 2010, 12:40:38 AM »
Quote from: Zakharra
So? It's their money. You're wanting to punish someone who you think isn't working. Is that person spending money? Yes. It just doesn't sit there completely unused. Some is spent. How much would vary from person to person and change over time. What they do with the money is their own business

 No. You would be forcing someone to work when they wouldn't want to. That person might have decided they made enough money that year and retire to live comfortably for the rest of their life (or until they either get bored or find something else that interests them that they want to make money from). That person might have had a goal and met it. Why should they be forced to work when they have made the money they want legally?

 Again, you're penalizing success. WHY should that person be forced to work?  Why should you care? The trust fund money is spent no matter what. How they spend it isn't our concern or business. As long as someone cares for the money, or even if no one cares for it, who cares? If it's spent unwisely, the person will have to find work sooner or later.

 Basically, if someone wants to work, they can. If they have to work to earn a living, they will. If they can work, but don't need to, they shouldn't be made to.

My view is that society should pay people to work. If it pays people more than they need to get paid to work, society is paying too much and should take the excess back. So, no, I fundamentally disagree that it's totally their money ever - I think it's society's and if we give it to them it's because society expects something from them. If they stop working for it then we can take it back.

Basically what I'm saying is that someone has to justify what society gives to him. I'm willing - even passionate - to say that society should richly reward someone who works hard, someone who justifies their  having wealth, even if it generates inequality. But if they stop working...at some point he can no longer justify why society supports him, let alone his offspring five generations later who had nothing to do with earning the privilege.

Quote from: Trieste
You're generally forgetting that if someone has the drive to make $10mil by the age of 20 or whatever, they often have their own drive to continue innovating.

Well...we'll see what Mark Zuckerberg does with the rest of his life.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #84 on: May 04, 2010, 10:48:26 AM »
My view is that society should pay people to work. If it pays people more than they need to get paid to work, society is paying too much and should take the excess back. So, no, I fundamentally disagree that it's totally their money ever - I think it's society's and if we give it to them it's because society expects something from them. If they stop working for it then we can take it back.

  No. It's not society's money. It is NEVER society's money. The closest it should come to that is tax money. What each person keeps is their own money. Not society's. The person earned it through hard work and effort. You're saying that it's not theirs? Why? Why is it society's money? It's not the society that paid for what this person produced. It's not society that  made a demand for the service the person provided. It was people and companies. 

 What gives society the right to steal (yes, steal is exactly the correct word for this) the person's money? They earned it. It's not doing anyone any harm if that person isn't working. The person is spending  their money. It's not like it is sitting doing absolutely nothing.

 Society isn't handing out money to people saying, 'Good work there. Keep it up.' The money a person earns is, for the most part, honestly earned and is legally that person's.  Your view  is more in mind of a government control of wealth since you seem to think that a person;s money isn't theirs and if that person isn't doing enough 'work' for your tastes, you would feel justified in taking that money away.

Quote
Basically what I'm saying is that someone has to justify what society gives to him. I'm willing - even passionate - to say that society should richly reward someone who works hard, someone who justifies their  having wealth, even if it generates inequality. But if they stop working...at some point he can no longer justify why society supports him, let alone his offspring five generations later who had nothing to do with earning the privilege.

 So what? As long as he has the money and is spending it, it's not hurting you. It is his money. Could he and his descendants make money later? Sure, if they wanted  to or had to if the money ran out. Why should someone who doesn't have to work and has a trust fund that is well managed by accountants, be forced to work if they don't want to?

 Justify to who? To you?  To some board that has an arbitrary level that every person must meet in order to keep their money? Why do you think every person has to 'contribute' to society? If the person has worked for it and thinks they have enough to satisfy them, why should that money be taken away. 

Offline Jude

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #85 on: May 04, 2010, 08:16:00 PM »
Money only has value because society recognizes that it has value though.  You forget that money is a tangible object with intangible value.  Everyone agrees to pretend that it's a fundamental unit of exchange, that's part of joining this club called the USA, but in reality it does not.

If we're going to keep pretending that your money holds value while you contribute nothing (if that is the case), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to ask for some of it.

We're all just passing around IOUs on fancy paper after all.  Consensus of imagination is the glue that holds society together.  If a bunch of people sat around demanding purely tangible products for another item with completely intangible value on a smaller scale, how long do you think it would take for the people who the demands are being made of to say, "I quit this game."
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 08:18:53 PM by Jude »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #86 on: May 04, 2010, 09:26:06 PM »
Money only has value because society recognizes that it has value though.  You forget that money is a tangible object with intangible value.  Everyone agrees to pretend that it's a fundamental unit of exchange, that's part of joining this club called the USA, but in reality it does not.

 That much it true. It has worth because people believe it does.

 
Quote
If we're going to keep pretending that your money holds value while you contribute nothing (if that is the case), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to ask for some of it.

  This is where we run into a problem. You seem to be assigning money value, only as long as a person works. The moment they stop working for their money, they somehow no longer earn it? That is seriously screwed. One of the reasons people work for money is to pass it onto their children.  Why should the fact a person who doesn't earn money (inherited it) or no longer needs to work stop them from having the money?

 If you're headed that route, of determining who can and cannot have money, why not just nationalize all businesses and set pay rates? You've already decided  how much money a person can have.

 
Quote
We're all just passing around IOUs on fancy paper after all.  Consensus of imagination is the glue that holds society together.  If a bunch of people sat around demanding purely tangible products for another item with completely intangible value on a smaller scale, how long do you think it would take for the people who the demands are being made of to say, "I quit this game."

 It's not imagination that gives paper money value. It's a belief that the paper note has an actual value. It's the same with electronic money. It has worth because people believe it does.  How long do you think it would take for people to say, 'I quit this game,'  if the money they or a parent earned is taken away from them for some arbitrary reason?

Offline Jude

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #87 on: May 04, 2010, 09:35:49 PM »
This is where we run into a problem. You seem to be assigning money value, only as long as a person works. The moment they stop working for their money, they somehow no longer earn it? That is seriously screwed. One of the reasons people work for money is to pass it onto their children.  Why should the fact a person who doesn't earn money (inherited it) or no longer needs to work stop them from having the money?
Why should someone have their every need attended for them their entire life simply because they were lucky enough to be born to the right parents while everyone else has to bust their ass to survive?
If you're headed that route, of determining who can and cannot have money, why not just nationalize all businesses and set pay rates? You've already decided  how much money a person can have.
Well... if that wasn't a gigantic logical jump.  You seem to be implying that if you support a tax against people who do not work and are in their prime, you support Communism.  Are we going to argue about Obama's birth certificate next?
It's not imagination that gives paper money value. It's a belief that the paper note has an actual value. It's the same with electronic money. It has worth because people believe it does.  How long do you think it would take for people to say, 'I quit this game,'  if the money they or a parent earned is taken away from them for some arbitrary reason?
Oh no, the people who don't work will say "they quit this game" and go play with some other people.  Guess what, this is not a loss.  They're not contributing anything real to the pile to be divided up amongst us using the monetary standard.

EDIT:  P.S. I'd like to see you quote to me where I decided how much money a person can have, like you said I did.  Or even where I determined who can and cannot have money.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 09:41:33 PM by Jude »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #88 on: May 04, 2010, 10:20:41 PM »
Why should someone have their every need attended for them their entire life simply because they were lucky enough to be born to the right parents while everyone else has to bust their ass to survive?

 Because it is THEIR money. How they got the money has absolutely no meaning if it was done legally. What they do with it is none of our business. If that person feels like they have no reason to work and doesn't have tom they shouldn't be made to work.


 
Quote
Well... if that wasn't a gigantic logical jump.  You seem to be implying that if you support a tax against people who do not work and are in their prime, you support Communism.  Are we going to argue about Obama's birth certificate next?


 Not really. You're setting an arbitrary limit on how much time people can have to not work. A 'You have X amount of money and can stay unemployed for x amount of time. Past that we start stealing/taking your money through higher taxes since you obviously can work, but are not working', situation.  It's punishing success. It's not that big of a leap to go from saying how long you can't work to saying how much you can earn for how long.

 I have no idea why brought in the President's birth certificate....

 
Quote
Oh no, the people who don't work will say "they quit this game" and go play with some other people.  Guess what, this is not a loss.  They're not contributing anything real to the pile to be divided up amongst us using the monetary standard.

 Want a bet? If the money a person earns through hard work is going to be taxed at a higher or much higher rate simply because that person or their descendants are not 'earning' it later in life, why should that person put out the effort to succeed? No matter what, a good portion of what he earns will be taken away. There's very little incentive to make tons of cash when it will be taken away by the government.

 
Quote
EDIT:  P.S. I'd like to see you quote to me where I decided how much money a person can have, like you said I did.  Or even where I determined who can and cannot have money.

 I was mainly responding to Asuras, but you were in the same area as he is from your statements of wanting to take money from those who you think are not doing enough to earn it.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #89 on: May 04, 2010, 10:28:55 PM »
Quote from: Zakharra
  No. It's not society's money. It is NEVER society's money. The closest it should come to that is tax money. What each person keeps is their own money. Not society's. The person earned it through hard work and effort. You're saying that it's not theirs? Why? Why is it society's money? It's not the society that paid for what this person produced. It's not society that  made a demand for the service the person provided. It was people and companies.

What gives society the right to steal (yes, steal is exactly the correct word for this) the person's money? They earned it. It's not doing anyone any harm if that person isn't working. The person is spending  their money. It's not like it is sitting doing absolutely nothing.

Society isn't handing out money to people saying, 'Good work there. Keep it up.' The money a person earns is, for the most part, honestly earned and is legally that person's.  Your view  is more in mind of a government control of wealth since you seem to think that a person;s money isn't theirs and if that person isn't doing enough 'work' for your tastes, you would feel justified in taking that money away.

Let me turn this around - why is it theirs? They worked for it, but so what?

This is the reality - society can come in and take whatever from whoever it wants whenever it wants. What really is bizarre is the idea that we think that an individual can have a right to something when that's the case. Why should society respect his "right" to something when society can take it?

And my argument actually coheres with that - society "gives" - or rather "lets someone have" - something when it gets something from them. It takes it back when it's no longer getting something from them. This is an emanation of society's self interest. All the "rights" we have are no more than that - and basically it's a tautology - the rights we have exist solely because society lets us alone and lets us have those rights.

Offline Jude

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #90 on: May 04, 2010, 10:34:30 PM »
Because it is THEIR money. How they got the money has absolutely no meaning if it was done legally. What they do with it is none of our business. If that person feels like they have no reason to work and doesn't have tom they shouldn't be made to work.
A modest tax on their money won't force them to work.  It will encourage them to, and I don't see the problem with encouraging people to work by taxing them for not doing so.  I guess this is a matter of philosophy here though.
Not really. You're setting an arbitrary limit on how much time people can have to not work. A 'You have X amount of money and can stay unemployed for x amount of time. Past that we start stealing/taking your money through higher taxes since you obviously can work, but are not working', situation.  It's punishing success. It's not that big of a leap to go from saying how long you can't work to saying how much you can earn for how long.

 I have no idea why brought in the President's birth certificate....
We already have taxes that punish people who get money without putting in the effort of working for it.  Capital gains, anyone?  This isn't as revolutionary of a concept as you're pretending it is.
Want a bet? If the money a person earns through hard work is going to be taxed at a higher or much higher rate simply because that person or their descendants are not 'earning' it later in life, why should that person put out the effort to succeed? No matter what, a good portion of what he earns will be taken away. There's very little incentive to make tons of cash when it will be taken away by the government.

 
 I was mainly responding to Asuras, but you were in the same area as he is from your statements of wanting to take money from those who you think are not doing enough to earn it.
1)  I didn't endorse taking so much away that, gasp, all of your efforts were for naught.  You make it sound like someone still couldn't retire ridiculously rich or go through their life without working if they had enough.  It would just force the people who tried to actually contribute in the way people who pay income taxes do.

2)  Wouldn't it encourage them to work harder to save up that extra bit to be able to handle those additional expenses incurred?  Thus working a bit longer.

3)  It could encourage people to continue working when they would've retired, which would keep talented individuals working longer.  Isn't that good for the country?

4)  There could always be exemptions for people who donate certain amounts of money to charity, or better yet, do certain acts of community service.

There isn't much of a point in debating this though, it seems we have a fundamental disagreement.  I think it's unjust that some people can inherit vast amounts of money simply by being born as the son or daughter of someone wealthy, do nothing with their life, and still live a better life than people who work hard.  As far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong here please, you seem to be perfectly OK with this.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #91 on: May 05, 2010, 12:48:01 PM »
A modest tax on their money won't force them to work.  It will encourage them to, and I don't see the problem with encouraging people to work by taxing them for not doing so.  I guess this is a matter of philosophy here though.
Then let the current taxes do that. There is no need to increase the tax on someone that can work and doesn't need to.

Quote
We already have taxes that punish people who get money without putting in the effort of working for it.  Capital gains, anyone?  This isn't as revolutionary of a concept as you're pretending it is.

 Yes, but once they earn the money, it's not taxed. Cap gains is a tax on earned income I believe.

 
 
Quote
1)  I didn't endorse taking so much away that, gasp, all of your efforts were for naught.  You make it sound like someone still couldn't retire ridiculously rich or go through their life without working if they had enough.  It would just force the people who tried to actually contribute in the way people who pay income taxes do.

2)  Wouldn't it encourage them to work harder to save up that extra bit to be able to handle those additional expenses incurred?  Thus working a bit longer.

3)  It could encourage people to continue working when they would've retired, which would keep talented individuals working longer.  Isn't that good for the country?

4)  There could always be exemptions for people who donate certain amounts of money to charity, or better yet, do certain acts of community service.

 1, I'm saying that because you and Asuras appear to be fine on taxing all wealth.  In an effort to force someone to work. Any 'encouragement' is force in the end if you are taking away what they made.

 2, Then let that person decide what they want, not some arbitrary level set by a board or society. It's no one's business  if they person wants to for for decades to make a ton of money. It's also no one else's business if that person makes a couple of million and decides to retire at age 30.

 3, No. You're -forcing- people to work when they don't necessarily want to or need to. If a person doesn't have to work, they should be made to work.

4, So as long as they spend the money in ways you approve of, they get a pass?  As long as it  goes away by either taxation or 'donations' it's fine? I'm sorry, but that is no better than pointing a gun at their head and saying  'Give me the money or send it to the charities.'

Quote
There isn't much of a point in debating this though, it seems we have a fundamental disagreement.  I think it's unjust that some people can inherit vast amounts of money simply by being born as the son or daughter of someone wealthy, do nothing with their life, and still live a better life than people who work hard.  As far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong here please, you seem to be perfectly OK with this.

 I have absolutely no problem with people having money. If they spend it unwisely, they'll either be forced to work or starve. If people who inherited wealth are smart, they do learn to manage and earn more. Just because you are born poor or rich doesn't mean you cannot improve your means if you have the ambition or drive, or sit on your butt lazing away.

 What a person does with their money is their business. NOT 'society's' business. No matter what, the money is spent.

 You are right we do have a difference of opinion. I believe in a person being able to keep the fruits of their effort and for that person to do with their wealth, what they want to. As long as it's not illegal, it's none of our business.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #92 on: May 05, 2010, 01:03:49 PM »
Let me turn this around - why is it theirs? They worked for it, but so what?

This is the reality - society can come in and take whatever from whoever it wants whenever it wants. What really is bizarre is the idea that we think that an individual can have a right to something when that's the case. Why should society respect his "right" to something when society can take it?

 It is theirs because they either did the work to earn it, or inherited it. Anyways it is theirs. Why are you wanting to steal that person's money when you didn't earn it? It's not yours, it's not society's. It is the sole property of the person that earned/owns it.
 
 Right now, the laws of society support the view that what a person makes is theirs. To take it in any manner is considered stealing.


 
Quote
And my argument actually coheres with that - society "gives" - or rather "lets someone have" - something when it gets something from them. It takes it back when it's no longer getting something from them. This is an emanation of society's self interest. All the "rights" we have are no more than that - and basically it's a tautology - the rights we have exist solely because society lets us alone and lets us have those rights.

 Your argument is somewhat flawed. Society makes laws which support some rights. Other rights are considered to not be changeable or removable.  Now the definition of those 'rights' can and have changed over time, but they are still there.  Currently, and correct me if I'm wring, but aside from some taxation, everything a person makes in their lifetime is considered the property of the person that made it or inherited. We are not forced to work if we do not have to. As long as WE are comfortable with what we have, we're happy.

 People want to earn enough so they don;t have to work anymore. They want to earn enough they can give their children a better start than they had in life. They -want- to be wealthy and not have to work.

 Your idea is taking that away by excessive taxation and forcing that person to work. Stealing the benefits of their labors.

 
Quote
Why should society respect his "right" to something when society can take it?

 Rereading this, that line caught my eye. That line right there is gods damned scary. You are essentially saying that 'society' can for any reason take something away when it wants to? Society is bound by laws to p[prevent that very thing. If it wasn't, then nothing would prevent a society from deciding, that for the 'good of all' to take the wealth of all wealthy people and put them back to work. To do anything it decided benefits 'society'

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #93 on: May 05, 2010, 08:11:26 PM »
Quote from: Zakharra
It is theirs because they either did the work to earn it, or inherited it. Anyways it is theirs. Why are you wanting to steal that person's money when you didn't earn it? It's not yours, it's not society's. It is the sole property of the person that earned/owns it.

And I'm asking, simply why. Maybe they worked for it, but why does that make it theirs?

Quote from: Zakharra
Right now, the laws of society support the view that what a person makes is theirs. To take it in any manner is considered stealing.

First, our laws also allow for things like income taxes, estate taxes, and eminent domain, which don't exactly say "everything you have is yours." At any rate, we could change the laws to anything and there's no reason that they're inspired by righteousness in the first place so...I don't see the point in bringing them up in an argument about justice.

Quote from: Zakharra
Society makes laws which support some rights. Other rights are considered to not be changeable or removable.  Now the definition of those 'rights' can and have changed over time, but they are still there.  Currently, and correct me if I'm wring, but aside from some taxation, everything a person makes in their lifetime is considered the property of the person that made it or inherited. We are not forced to work if we do not have to. As long as WE are comfortable with what we have, we're happy.

Again, the laws we have are not necessarily a reflection of justice. And even if many people may consider some rights which are laws to be part of some higher moral law, the physical reality is that the right actually exists only because society chooses to respect that right. And personally I think that the word "right" in any sense other than the practical, morally void legal sense is meaningless.

I already mentioned eminent domain, but add to that antitrust law and the battery of regulations that corporations work under...we don't treat property as inviolable.

Quote from: Zakharra
People want to earn enough so they don;t have to work anymore. They want to earn enough they can give their children a better start than they had in life. They -want- to be wealthy and not have to work.

They may want that, but society wants something else.

Quote from: Zakharra
Rereading this, that line caught my eye. That line right there is gods damned scary. You are essentially saying that 'society' can for any reason take something away when it wants to? Society is bound by laws to p[prevent that very thing.

The physical reality is that society can take anything it wants. Any individual can be overpowered by society; it's as good as a physical law.

Quote from: Zakharra
If it wasn't, then nothing would prevent a society from deciding, that for the 'good of all' to take the wealth of all wealthy people and put them back to work. To do anything it decided benefits 'society'

There are reasons not to take wealth arbitrarily from all wealthy people. Society benefits from many or most wealthy people - they're productive, they work, they continually justify having their wealth.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #94 on: May 06, 2010, 12:00:55 PM »
People that have more should simply pay more its the duty of the rich to make sure those they make their money on the backs of pay accordingly. But I do feel taxes should be fair say everyone paying a flat percentage on their incomes regardless if its a wage slave or a member of the elite of our society. Then use this to provide for all citizens what is needed at a modest level.

And I will add you can't take it with you, an old saying but true.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #95 on: May 06, 2010, 12:24:31 PM »
Right now, the laws of society support the view that what a person makes is theirs. To take it in any manner is considered stealing.

It's more ingrained than that.  I was doing some googling on vague things I remembered from my high-school Civics class, and finally got directed to a place I wasn't expecting.

Quote
    * Fifth Amendment due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

    No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Bolding used to untangle exceptionally complex sentence structure)