[MD] On taxation

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Do you agree or not with the general proposition, "From each according
> to his abilities, to each according to his needs?" All your plans to
> improve society call upon those with ability to pay to alleviate the
> pain and suffering of those in need. Right?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I do not agree with the general proposition. I'll also point out the
> rhetorical assumption you make, "those with ability to alleviate the
> pain and suffering of those in need", is a nice slant that builds in the
> proposal that "those in need" and "those with ability" are different.
> Everyone has "ability" and "needs". This is my fundamental source of
> disagreement with those favoring a "capistocracy", in that wealth
> becomes a measure of worth. SA has responded to this eloquently, so I'll
> just say, "yeah, what SA says".

I think we've all agreed previously that people have different abilities in the
sense that some are better at math than others, better at music than others,
better at drawing than others, etc., etc. "Ability to pay," is a 
different matter and reflects that indeed there is a "difference" 
between the rich and the poor which you have pointed out a number of 
times. It is that "difference" that the Marxist proposition refers to, 
and if I'm not mistaken, one you generally agree with, i.e. a moral 
principle the the rich (those with ability to pay) should help the poor 
(those in need). .    

> [Platt]
> I said "cut," not "eliminate." [taxes] So much for answering
> "substance."
> 
> [Arlo]
> Just a misunderstanding then. Do you favor an income tax, then? What do
> you feel about Forbes argument that an income tax punishes people for
> taxing what they contribute TO society, while a consumption tax rightly
> targets what people TAKE from society? If you favor the income tax,
> would you favor abolishing sales taxes and other forms of taxation
> outright? If so, what percentage of income should be taken for taxes?
> With this administration's historical highs in spending, how would we
> pay this debt without increasing income tax?

First, I think it's been historically shown that a decrease in taxes 
increases tax revenue due to greater economic activity. Second, I favor 
either a flat income tax (as opposed to a progressive income tax) or 
the "Fair Tax" proposed by the libertarian Neil Boortz, which is like 
your proposal for a consumption tax.  But just to repeat myself, in all 
cases the less tax the better. Perhaps you'll agree that there are 
potentially billions of dollars to be saved in government fraud and 
waste?

> [Platt]
> When did I say getting rid of it [bankruptcy] was Marxist? The whole
> country goes bankrupt under Marxism.
> 
> [Arlo]
> In my original suggestions, I included, "Eliminate bankruptcy, private
> and business." You referred to this as evidence of my Marxist agenda.
> When I asked you why this was evidence of Marxism, you replied,
> "Marxists abolish bankruptcy laws because in their controlled economy
> the government is the market. When it goes bankrupt a revolution soon
> follows as we saw in the Soviet bloc." Is it safe to assume that we
> agree that bankruptcy should be eliminated for both individuals AND
> businesses? And that your claim that my proposal evidenced Marxism was
> simply a misunderstanding?

I admit to not being too familiar with bankruptcy laws as they operate 
today. As I understand it, the laws are intended to give the bankrupt 
company or individual a chance to "reorganize" so as to become 
productive again. They are not intended to allow someone to walk away 
scott free from debts incurred. If that's what you propose, I'm against 
it. I think people and companies ought to be held responsible for 
meeting their contractural obligations to others.

> [Arlo previously]
> Who determines what is "legitimate"? Democratic vote? Conservative
> ideologues? Philosophers? Dare I say, "intellectuals"?
> 
> [Platt]
> We the people through our elected representatives under our
> Constitutional government. You want an intellectual elite to rule?.
> 
> [Arlo]
> The I take it if the majority vote for welfare, then you would consider
> taxation and redistribution a legitimate function of government? Is this
> a call for national referendums? As for an "intellectual elite" ruling
> the country, we are in no current danger of that.

I think there ought to be a provision in the Constitution of a country 
that prohibits the Federal government from taking from productive Peter 
to pay nonproductive Paul. If such transfer payments are to be made at 
all, they should be enacted by local level governments where the 
administration and effects can be more carefully monitored. Likewise, I 
favor local rather than national referendums to bring government as 
close as possible to oversight by the people affected. Finally, I'm 
glad you consider rule by an intellectual elite (as some here have 
proposed) to be dangerous. I agree.  

> [Platt]
> Since I don't know what Limbaugh would disagree with I can't answer.
> Pirsig argued for freedom within a framework of order which is what
> conservatives argue for. But he argues for other things, too, like how
> intellectuals having taken over society have screwed up. Do you agree?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I agree with Pirsig's premise, but find the word "intellectual" to be
> highly problematic. Pirsig, for example, is an "intellectual", and his
> book is an example of an "intellectual" proposing how to make the world
> better. Einstein was an intellectual. As I understand it, you use
> "intellectual" as simply a synonym for "college professors". And that
> puts us right back into really "just right wing politics" of attacking
> the Academy. It  makes for good soundbite, but offers nothing of
> substance. Also, keep in mind, that according the MOQ intellectuals
> SHOULD govern society, the problems he describes are a result only that
> SOMist underpinnings still exist. These same underpinnings are described
> as the problem in the production and consumption of goods discussed in
> ZMM. I think you neglect much of what Pirsig says in favor of only that
> which conforms to the Party.

I've noticed in this and posts by others that the term "intellectual" 
is tossed around without definition. My memory is poor, but haven't we 
tried in the past to agree on a definition? Perhaps you can refresh my 
memory. 

(skip)
 
> [Platt]
> In a civilized society, a person who cannot keep the product of his
> labor is a slave. Do you think slavery is legitimate?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Hm. Here you seem to advance the notion that "legitimacy" is not simply
> a function of popular vote. If it isn't, from where does it arise?

Good question. My answer is, "Ultimately from philosophy."  Do you 
agree?
 
> [Arlo previously]
> Should the government provide public roads? Public lands? EMT services?
> Public libraries? A military? Park rangers? Highway patrol officers?
> School?
> 
> [Platt]
> Roads, parks, libraries, schools, police, military OK. EMT questionable.
> 
> [Arlo]
> In other words, "let the poor die"?

In other words, leave it up to volunteers as is the case in many 
communities.

> I have another Marxist suggestion for you. Eliminate property tax
> entirely (which isnt really a new suggestion, since I've already said to
> abolish all other forms of taxation in favor of a consumption tax). All
> to often, property tax is used to force landowners whose land is
> suddenly "valuable" for commerical development or "desirable" to wealthy
> newcomers, off their land. And, get ride of eminent domain entirely.

Agree on elimination of property taxes, but the government needs 
eminent domain for legitimate government purposes like roads. 

Platt