Income Taxes: Are They Theft?

[Sibirsky]

What are talking about? The greatest periods of growth in the US and UK were under commodity monetary systems.

So, which commodity?

Why is it up to me to decide? I don't (and should not) have that power.

[Wikkiwallana]

Better then drastic backnforthing between inflation and deflation, at least the money supply has a base stability.

No, it isn't.

Why not? As I said before:

Argument by assertion is theft, I want my time back.

[Sibirsky]

Precious metals are scarce and cannot be dispersed to 300 million people efficiently. Tobacco has environmental impact and is a consumable. Now, there is an economy in jails where cigarettes are used as currency, but nationwide? No. Bad idea.

Then you'd have to deal with exchange rates, inflation, deflation, etc. What we have works. We just can't put an idiot as chairman of the reserve and improve from that on. Switching to commodity currency for the sake of avoiding taxes is just making mountains out of molehills.

I argued this same thing with ML a while ago.

I got pwned.

And Norstal is worse than you.

[Mad Monarch]

Of course, but the real disconnect is that laissez-faire capitalists tend to assume that just because monopolies and oligopolies restrict the free market, they cannot exist without government intervention. They can.

There are three gas stations in my small town. All three of them hike the price well above what would be a fair price given the cost of transporting the fuel to and from my town (factoring at least a 200% profit in, mind you) and then they buy up available land that could be used to build a new gas station upon it to prevent new forms of competition from entering the market.

Guess who could solve this problem? The government, through eminent domain to seize the land that those gas stations buy up in order to preserve their oligopoly. But no one would dare do that, lest the small-minded twats who run the local chamber of commerce start screaming "SOCIALISM" at the next public meeting of the town council.

Did I ever say that I was a laissez-faire Capitalist? I'm totally in favor of a government breaking up a monopoly. I'm pretty sure they covered that issue in an episode of King of the Hill, though it was propane, not gasoline.

Laissez-faire is the form that most "free marketers" use. It has more or less become their slogan.

That goes for you as well.

me a Laissez-faire economist!?


you funny dude

[Ravineworld]

Of course, but the real disconnect is that laissez-faire capitalists tend to assume that just because monopolies and oligopolies restrict the free market, they cannot exist without government intervention. They can.

There are three gas stations in my small town. All three of them hike the price well above what would be a fair price given the cost of transporting the fuel to and from my town (factoring at least a 200% profit in, mind you) and then they buy up available land that could be used to build a new gas station upon it to prevent new forms of competition from entering the market.

Guess who could solve this problem? The government, through eminent domain to seize the land that those gas stations buy up in order to preserve their oligopoly. But no one would dare do that, lest the small-minded twats who run the local chamber of commerce start screaming "SOCIALISM" at the next public meeting of the town council.

Did I ever say that I was a laissez-faire Capitalist? I'm totally in favor of a government breaking up a monopoly. I'm pretty sure they covered that issue in an episode of King of the Hill, though it was propane, not gasoline.

Laissez Faire means having virtually no interference in the economy. Breaking up monopolies is A) a monopoly on breaking up monopolies and B) not Laissez Faire

[Grave_n_idle]

but then it isn't a free market

How so? Monopolies are certainly not part of a free market...

And the invisible hands will automatically fix everything that is wrong with the world. More of the same old obviously false bullshit we hear wheeled out time after time.

[Sibirsky]

I argued this same thing with ML a while ago.

I got pwned.

ML? I don't know who that is. And what did they argued?

Moral Libertarians
An economically literate person.

[Sibirsky]

On what fucking planet?

Earth

To be more specific, here in The United States of America.(and the state of North Carolina for me)

We are not fucking asked if we are willing to pay fucking taxes.

[New Conglomerate]

About that...

So, fucking what? Did I say there were no crises? What is your fucking point?

How about all the recessions after the Fed was started?

The ones that were caused by the fed to end stagflation, the one where the fed did absolutely nothing, or the one where the fed begged the government to do something? Two of those pailed in comparison to the money panics and what they did to finance and the markets.

Did I ever say that I was a laissez-faire Capitalist? I'm totally in favor of a government breaking up a monopoly. I'm pretty sure they covered that issue in an episode of King of the Hill, though it was propane, not gasoline.

I remember that episode, now. Wasn't it the one where Hank convinces the propane dealerships to stop undercutting each other and gets hired as an informant by the FBI?

And I wasn't necessarily directing that towards you. It's just a standard example I cite (sorta) whenever someone starts talking about monopolies in a thread with many libertarians in it.

[Mad Monarch]

Earth

To be more specific, here in The United States of America.(and the state of North Carolina for me)

We are not fucking asked if we are willing to pay fucking taxes.

here are a bunch of planks and a few wood wheels. Sell everything you own and get going then. The gypsie lifestyle awaits!

[Sibirsky]

For the time being.


Well, they think yes. But they do not know.


I don't think they can legally deny care.

then how, pray tell, will they have the money to give you care without taxes?

Foot, meet bullet. Bullet, blow off his big toe.

What? What part of the first exchange went over your had? It was just 4 words.

[New Conglomerate]

Earth

To be more specific, here in The United States of America.(and the state of North Carolina for me)

We are not fucking asked if we are willing to pay fucking taxes.

As somebody who moved here and had to become a naturalized citizen, you know that's simply not true.

[Sibirsky]

Wow, that's incredible statistical manipulation...I've never seen such a spectacular failure of confusing correlation and causation.

The unemployment rose in 1981-1982 because of a recession caused by a huge hike in interest rates by Volcker and the Federal Reserve designed to finally break the inflationary pressures of the 1970's, a move which ultimately succeeded spectacularly and produced two decades of low inflation and solid growth. By the time Reagan left office unemployment was at 5.2%, and not only that but this was a truly spectacular gain because labor force participation also increased rapidly; not only were people previously unemployed working again but millions more had joined the labor force and found work...the participation rate was the highest ever recorded at the time.

In fact, during the current "recovery" our participation rate is roughly at 1984 levels...

You expected economic honesty fro Wikki? Really?

[United Dependencies]

Earth

To be more specific, here in The United States of America.(and the state of North Carolina for me)

We are not fucking asked if we are willing to pay fucking taxes.

The house of representatives controls(or at least starts the process for) all federal taxes.

Your state legislators control your state tax.

The federal house of representatives is up for election every two years. You are, obviously, not alone in your dislike of income and other taxes. There are organizations and candidates out there who would do things that you would agree with. Work with them and vote for them.

[Sibirsky]

We don't have that now? Have you been under a rock for 12 years?

Let's see this is currently the worst recession since...1930.

Doesn't exactly sound like boom and bust from where I sit.

Tech bubble. Bust. Housing bubble. Bust.

Of course when you are blind...

[Hathradic States]

Using taxes to pay for a pointless war? That is theft.

Using taxes to support some bum who won't get a job? That is theft.

Using taxes to buy gold toilet seats (a metaphor for government excess)? That is theft.

Using taxes to build roads, fund schools, and keep the water clean? Not theft.

[Mad Monarch]

then how, pray tell, will they have the money to give you care without taxes?

Foot, meet bullet. Bullet, blow off his big toe.

What? What part of the first exchange went over your had? It was just 4 words.

I was talking about the last part. The part where you agree the costs will be insane but "they can't legally deny you care". No taxes, no money to help the poor. Sorry pal, if you ever need life saving surgery you better hope you have one hell of an insurance plan. I doubt it'd be fun waking up mid-surgery because your check bounced.

[United Dependencies]

Let's see this is currently the worst recession since...1930.

Doesn't exactly sound like boom and bust from where I sit.

Tech bubble. Bust. Housing bubble. Bust.

Of course when you are blind...

Yes they did bust. It's been 80 years since a bust this big, but yes you can say that they bust.

[Wikkiwallana]

Wow, that's incredible statistical manipulation...I've never seen such a spectacular failure of confusing correlation and causation.

The unemployment rose in 1981-1982 because of a recession caused by a huge hike in interest rates by Volcker and the Federal Reserve designed to finally break the inflationary pressures of the 1970's, a move which ultimately succeeded spectacularly and produced two decades of low inflation and solid growth. By the time Reagan left office unemployment was at 5.2%, and not only that but this was a truly spectacular gain because labor force participation also increased rapidly; not only were people previously unemployed working again but millions more had joined the labor force and found work...the participation rate was the highest ever recorded at the time.

In fact, during the current "recovery" our participation rate is roughly at 1984 levels...

You expected economic honesty fro Wikki? Really?

I provided a sourced link, if you disagree, you are free to provide source showing I was wrong. I don't take unsourced rhetoric or personal attacks as valid counterpoints.

[Patriqvinia]

Using taxes to pay for a pointless war? That is theft.

Using taxes to support some bum who won't get a job? That is theft.

Using taxes to buy gold toilet seats (a metaphor for government excess)? That is theft.

Using taxes to build roads, fund schools, and keep the water clean? Not theft.

There is still not consent from everyone. Just because you're okay with being forced to pay for these does not mean everyone else is.

[Death Metal]

You expected economic honesty fro Wikki? Really?

As opposed to you, yes.

[Sibirsky]

But they do not know if you will die during the term. Nor do they know what conditions you will develop 30 years in advance (and in turn, how likely you are to die due to health reasons).

They don't care if you develop conditions, they only pay for actual death, and cause doesn't affect payment beyond general categorization. And they can use statistical methods to get a pretty good idea of if you will die or not. Accident rates, medical death rates, age related deaths, it's all tracked and can be assigned a percentage likelihood based on your starting condition. If the odds of death are too high, the charge you massive premiums or just flat deny you from buying their product.

On the other hand, all that same data is available to medical insurance, except how much they pay out is based on what happens to you. Thus if you get cancer they are paying a hell of a lot more than if you get a cold. And if you already have cancer they have next to no chance of making a profit on you, so they just say "fuck off".

Why the fuck would they not care if you develop conditions?

You do understand that certain medical conditions make it more likely for an individual to die, right? That affects their risk. But they have already locked in their premium. Why the fuck, would they do that?

Free market, competition, I don't fucking know!

Your claims are bullshit. A combination of reforms could address this. Of course, they aren't your style, since they don't involve the state.

[Hathradic States]

Using taxes to pay for a pointless war? That is theft.

Using taxes to support some bum who won't get a job? That is theft.

Using taxes to buy gold toilet seats (a metaphor for government excess)? That is theft.

Using taxes to build roads, fund schools, and keep the water clean? Not theft.

There is still not consent from everyone. Just because you're okay with being forced to pay for these does not mean everyone else is.

Look. comrade, there is nothing you are going to get universal consent on...

[Occupied Deutschland]

Because centralized expertise has this odd tendency of just being enlarged and universally applied local prejudice.

Wrong, by definition.

Holocaust: Jews are inferior to real people on the genetic level after all...

Tianamen Square: They're undermining the security & stability of the system after all...

Agent Orange: We need to deny the enemy cover after all...

Turkish massacre of Armenians: That land belongs to the Turks after all...

Belgian Congo- They need to be civilized like Europeans after all...
Defense of Marriage Act- Gays aren't REALLY the same after all...

Nuclear bombing of Japan: They're just dirty Nips after all...We wouldn't want white-skinned red-blooded Americans to get hurt invading!

Russian Holodomer: That food is needed elsewhere after all...And besides, the country needs to be industrialized!

Chinese Great Leap Forward: We need to industrialize OMFGAOL-MAO!

US Expansion West: Indians don't deserve the land/We need to civilize the Indians/They're weaker people anyways
And I could probably find more, but MAYBE you get da' pattern no?

[Sibirsky]

You do understand that a faster rate of growth means more jobs are created, incomes grow faster and poverty is reduced faster, correct?

I don't remember sticking up for the rich.

You do understand I pointed out that isn't true by default earlier, only a possibility, right? On the other hand, giving money to people who don't have enough money to eat because they are too old to work resulting in them having food is true by default. Guess which one I care about more.

A requirement is more like it. Without economic growth, poverty will not decline.

Why do you hate the poor?