You are right. Some people you know do care. However, the Voters, of which I count myself, do not care. Moreover, I think you are self absorbed. When I filter out your rhetoric, you an I share some common concerns; living off the grid vs. RFID chips in paper money. But other than screaming into the wind, you won’t stand up and DO anything. So OUR common goal is weakened by one vote.

You probably take pride in viewing yourself as “uncompromising” and believe you have principles. Unfortunately, compromise is necessary for the function of society. The “end game” for your philosophy seems to be anarchy. Good luck with that.

>> Actually cutting the tax rates increases revenue not the
>> other way around.

> If the tax rate was 95%, that’d probably be true.
> If the tax rate was 5%, that’d probably be false.

has been down rated to -6.

Do lots of people here think that cutting the Federal tax rate by two thirds would probably result in the GDP rising by more than 300%?

> I will not think of taxes as something
> they are not. I never agreed to the
> “service” of tearing apart Iraq, of
> locking up hundreds of thousands of
> people who have done no harm (drug
> war), of murdering family pets as
> policy,

I’m frequently pissed off about stuff
like that. So pissed off that I
send money I really should be saving to
various organizations that are I think
are trying to change things for the better.

I really doubt that we will ever have a
system where we can direct our taxes
only towards those things we want to
pay for. Indeed, it seems quite
unworkable. Suppose, for example, you
decide you don’t want to pay for roads,
but you still want to use them.

>> of a pyramid scheme “retirement
>> fund” which is set to devastate our
>> economy and leave my children and
>> grandchildren stranded, etc., etc., ad
>> nauseum.

I presume you are referring to Social
Security. It started out as a pay-as-we-go
scheme and the fact that the number of
workers increased each year meant that
there was something of the aspect of a
pyramid to it. That’s no longer the case
though. In 1983, workers were asked to
start paying extra so that the generation
following the boomers wouldn’t be
overburdened. As the economy grows at
least 2.2% per year(low by historical
standards), the trust fund will remain
solvent indefinitely.

Here’s how I see it:

We boomers happily helped pay for the
generations that came before us and then
chipped in an extra 30% to help pay for
our own SS. And just as we boomers
approach retirement, you want stop
paying the social security tax.

>> I don’t have time to properly Fisk your
>> remarks in defense of theft.

Some Libertarians think that Taxes
are Theft. Some Marxists think
that Property is Theft. Just
different types of utopians whose
plans(if they were ever put into
effect) would generally increase
the level of misery in the world.

>> I’ll just point out that I would
>> never force you to do something
>> you never agreed to do, so long as
>> you’re not hurting anyone.

I don’t enforce any of the rules. I just
point out the windmills as you tilt at’em.

>> I wish you’d give everyone else the
>> same respect.

Don’t go all maudlin on me.

Edintally: If you don’t vote or take part in the system, nobody cares.

That is manifestly untrue. Ask those Americans who have tried to get away from the insanity of government, to live their life on their own terms, neither taking from others what they didn’t earn, nor giving up what they earn to pay for things they don’t want or need. Living “off the grid” is increasingly difficult because the government is increasingly bent on making sure you can’t.

Now start hitting the negative button Mr. I Don’t Vote.

Pay attention. I don’t vote in political elections. I wouldn’t go into your house and take away part of your wealth to pay for things I think are important. I don’t have the moral authority to do so. Hence, I can’t grant such an authority to any “representative,” either. I respect your rights too much to vote.

If I register my opinion on a private website, which has no power to force you to do anything, that has nothing in common with a political election.

Try using reason to distinguish the essentials, would ya?

Rob:
Think of taxes as a service charge.

I will not think of taxes as something they are not. I never agreed to the “service” of tearing apart Iraq, of locking up hundreds of thousands of people who have done no harm (drug war), of murdering family pets as policy, of a pyramid scheme “retirement fund” which is set to devastate our economy and leave my children and grandchildren stranded, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

I don’t have time to properly Fisk your remarks in defense of theft. I’ll just point out that I would never force you to do something you never agreed to do, so long as you’re not hurting anyone. I wish you’d give everyone else the same respect.

You don’t vote because of your principles. You don’t want to tell other people what they can and can’t do. Please. It’s a shame that principle doesn’t extend to the internet. I have more respect for the evangelical wing of the republican party. At least they are in the game. If you don’t vote or take part in the system, nobody cares. That’s not coming from me. That’s coming from every political party. Nobody has time for people who don’t participate.

Now start hitting the negative button Mr. I Don’t Vote.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I believe correlation implies the possibility of causation.

In this case, we’ve not only got correlation, we have a mechanism.
The government takes money from most of us and redistributes
some of it to the very poor.

> Can you explain to me how using force to take from people who produce,

Think of taxes as a service charge. If you don’t like the service
here, you can take your business elsewhere. Somalia, for instance.
Go there. I’m pretty sure they don’t have a lot of annoying government
regulation and very probably no income tax.

> frittering away the bulk of it on bureaucracy, and offering bits of “free
> cheese”

Yes. Most of what the government offers is sort of like “free cheese.”
Well, that and roads, schools, and a few other things too trivial to
mention.

Did you know that the internet originated as a government project?
I was a student back then. Didn’t have much income, but even so,
some of my tax dollars went towards that project. Money well spent,
I think.

> had anything to do with the invention of the light bulb, refrigerator,
> automobile, television, computer, etc.?

Generally, inventors benefit very much from the infrastructure
and services provided by the government.

My grandfather for instance, was a cowboy all his life. My father
would likely have followed in his footsteps but for WWII and the
subsequent GI bill. He ended up inventing for GE. I’m pretty
sure he has paid very much more in taxes than was spent to
put him through school.

> Allow me to steal billions and sure, I can make a net “benefit” in at
> least 2% of the things in which I involve myself.

I agree that if we put someone, who doesn’t believe in
government, in charge of the government, the odds are fairly good
that he would not do a very good job. And if he happened to be
dishonest as well as disinterested and incompetent, he might
try to steal vast sums.

Come to think of it, that pretty well describes the last 8 years.

> You’re overlooking the other 98% of the time when the dreams
> and aspirations of people were quashed by not allowing them the
> liberty to be as productive as they could have been.

98% eh?

I would have guessed that most dream quashing is self inflicted.

> “I don’t know how obviously contrived the graph is.”

> From a mathematical point of view, what jumps out right away is the fact
> that one is comparing apples to oranges. The mean for a 1% slice and the > mean for a 40% or 60% slice are not comparable.

What 40% or 50% slices are you talking about?

Why are means for different slices not comparable? Feel free to get
technical. (My math degree was achieved a very long time ago, but
I expect I can follow along.)

> Furthermore, you can’t even
> make a valid comparison between the left side and the right, as the advent
> of technology has made a far greater difference than dollars.

The “technology” the poor make most use of involves food,
clothing, housing, and transportation and I don’t see much change
in that in the last 30 years.

> The bare fact is that poor people in this country have been getting richer, both in
> absolute dollar amounts

That is in no way a “bare fact”. Indeed, it appears to take a great deal of
hand waving to get there.

> as well as in the accouterments of modern life.

In the last thirty years, I suppose their TVs have gotten bigger. They’ve
got microwaves. They’ve got crummy cell phones. And some of them
have ancient computers where before they had none. I’m not sure that
that’s much of an improvement, but what the hell, maybe they think it is.

> Asserting that the cited graph means that is “generally not true” is just
> flat wrong.

>> “I wondering how you all feel about inheritance taxes. Are
>> dynasties a good thing? None of our business?”

> None of our business. If someone builds a fortune honestly, he gets to do > with it as he wishes.

Let’s suppose that after he’s dead, he’s past wishing.

In any event, who determines whether or not someone builds a fortune
honestly? The government that you don’t trust to do anything right?
What makes you think the rich guy won’t try to subvert the process (He’s
certainly got a lot more ability to do it than does the average joe.)

> Inheritance taxes (like all taxes) are nothing but people who don’t do
> anything to produce the values forcibly taking them away.

The originator is dead, so it’s just one group of non-producers taking something from another group of non-producers. What’s the big deal? (I’m kind of kidding on the square here.)

Edintally: Elliot your arguments are fallacious …

So you assert. Feel free to be more specific. Need help?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/FALLACYS.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I’ve seen your type of arguments for years. I probably made many of the same quips you have, until I realized there is no justification to force people to do something they never agreed to do, so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. It would have been easier for me not to be among the “fringe” by not being honest about that. Really, who wants to be marginalized? But if you’ll look at those lists of fallacies, you’ll see that argumentum ad populum is there, which means your “fringe” crack has no bearing on the truth.

“Fallacious” indeed!

gl

bcg: But it’s like I started with – taxes exist and are legitimate. Which means, yes, I implicitly am entitled to a certain amount of money that other people make….

If you think you’re entitled to what someone else produces–something you took no part in producing–then I recommend you go get it yourself, rather than sending your proxies to do your dirty work. Something tells me that facing the possibility of getting shot as a burglar might make you reevaluate your argument.

bcg:Taxes exist and are legitimate.

Slavery existed and was legitimate. Slavery was an immoral abomination.

If the law is wrong, no one has any obligation to obey it.

I have no problem whatsoever with someone freeing slaves, not paying taxes, smoking marijuana, crossing a line on a map, or anything else which hurts no one else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Can you explain to me how using force to take from people who produce, frittering away the bulk of it on bureaucracy, and offering bits of “free cheese” had anything to do with the invention of the light bulb, refrigerator, automobile, television, computer, etc.? Allow me to steal billions and sure, I can make a net “benefit” in at least 2% of the things in which I involve myself. You’re overlooking the other 98% of the time when the dreams and aspirations of people were quashed by not allowing them the liberty to be as productive as they could have been.

“I don’t know how obviously contrived the graph is.”

From a mathematical point of view, what jumps out right away is the fact that one is comparing apples to oranges. The mean for a 1% slice and the mean for a 40% or 60% slice are not comparable. Furthermore, you can’t even make a valid comparison between the left side and the right, as the advent of technology has made a far greater difference than dollars.

The bare fact is that poor people in this country have been getting richer, both in absolute dollar amounts as well as in the accouterments of modern life. Asserting that the cited graph means that is “generally not true” is just flat wrong.

“I wondering how you all feel about inheritance taxes. Are dynasties a good thing? None of our business?”

None of our business. If someone builds a fortune honestly, he gets to do with it as he wishes. Inheritance taxes (like all taxes) are nothing but people who don’t do anything to produce the values forcibly taking them away.

Mojo said, “University professors produce something that others value as well….”

I didn’t say anything about professors. I only made a remark about who was paying for the website. I know quite a bit about Warren and I admire what he’s done. He provides services to people who voluntarily pay him. As far as I know, none of them are forced, under threat of confiscation, to give him any money. That makes me respect his opinions and insight quite a bit. I don’t know anything about the guy at ASU (who may or may not be faculty), but I’d still take the wager. You’re silly to declare an end to it, with no evidence in hand, too.

But since you brought up the professors, I’ll bite. When you throw in tax subsidies, government grants for research, government-backed student loans, and the rest, how do you measure how much value, and to whom, these professors provide? Put them in a free market and see how much their expertise is worth.

Unreal.

Taxes exist and are legitimate. Yes, it’s the government taking money from its citizenry at the point of a gun, and yes that’s a delicate thing. But the richest Americans are those who benefit the most from the fruits of taxation – they are the ones who most need the highways for their business expansion, they are the ones who most need courts since they are more likely to engage in lawsuits, etc.

I don’t think that the “benefits of taxation” slope is linear, either – I think that a person who is ten times richer than I am is receiving more than ten times more benefit from the government existing. There is a lot of overlap here, surely, because I’m benefiting from the fruits of these rich people’s labors by buying products that wouldn’t be available to me without them. This goes both ways, however – a police force paid for by taxes creates local security that encourages economic growth, enabling me to buy those products. But I don’t think offsets all the little things, such as if a draft were re-instituted, I would be drafted, and a rich person’s son would not be; I don’t know the congressperson of my district, so I will not be able to have an internship in D.C., whereas the rich son will, etc. These are all benefits of government that, while not admirable, DO EXIST and therefore MUST BE INCLUDED in the analysis until they can be reliably eliminated.

But it’s like I started with – taxes exist and are legitimate. Which means, yes, I implicitly am entitled to a certain amount of money that other people make, and they are entitled to some of my money. Noody has to like it, but that’s the legitimate situation.

I don’t know how obviously contrived the graph is. Is anyone here disputing the idea that in the last 30 years, the rich have gotten very much richer? If not, I can’t see how there is much dispute about the top line of graph from UA. And the numbers of the 10th percentile appear to be consistent with what I have seen in many other places. (Very little growth in the last 30 years.)

I wondering how you all feel about inheritance taxes. Are dynasties a good thing? None of our business?

I’d wager that Warren knows more about how business works and how government hurts those who are honestly trying to make money. He definitely has a good handle on the underlying ethics involved.

I’ve read him for years and have found him to be quite honest and fair at examining data. I’ve never seen him massaging the numbers to show something as obviously contrived as the cited graph.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/08/not-the-best-of.html