[MD] On taxation

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Platt]
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). .    

[Arlo]
I think I've answered this in the "For each... to each..." thread. Let's move
this part of the discussion there, eh?

[Platt]
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?

[Arlo]
The problem (for me) with retaining a tax on income (as oppposed to a tax on
consumption) is that, first, I agree with Forbes' (the magazine) assessment
that as a tax on "contributions", it actually punishes activity. For example,
an individual who seeks a second job to earn money to buy a house may find
him/herself suddenly in a higher tax bracket, where any extra labor is negated
by the increase in taxes. And second, there are many loopholes for the wealthy
to avoid paying a "fair share" of a "fair tax". Meaning that while the lower
socio-economic incomes would likely have to pay a full 10% (or whatever the
flat tax rate was) of their income, while those on the higher side have access
to off-shore accounts, investments, funds, etc, that could "hide" part of their
income. Which is another problem, what counts as "income"? I just find a
consumption tax much more desireable. You keep all of your income
(contributions to society) and are taxed only on that which you "take from
society" (Forbes' words). 

[Platt]
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]
I think I see the source of the confusion (maybe). When I said "eliminate
bankruptcy", I did not mean "eliminate debt"! I meant eliminate the laws that
allow for bankruptcy.

My major point of contention here is with the laws that now hold individuals
responsible for their debt, while still allowing business to say "oops" and
walk away scott free, as you say. I'm arguing for the same standards to be
applied to businesses as we demand from individuals. If, as some argue, we must
give businesses this recourse to a pass, then I argue we must afford
individuals the same. So, you either eliminate the ability to claim bankruptcy
for BOTH individuals AND businesses, or you allow them both TO claim it.


[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
Let me get to this further below.

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
There was a thread that attempted to define it. I didn't participate in that at
the time. But I do argue that the term itself is problematic. Like "Newspeak",
people should just use the words they mean. If by "intellectuals" you mean
"college professors", say so. If you mean "liberals" say so. Even in Pirsig I
find the word "intellectual" poorly defined and used. Like I said, *I* consider
Pirsig an "intellectual". Einstein, Dusenberry, Hegel... all "intellectuals".
And as for "intellectuals telling us how to lead better lives", well, that's
Pirsig! So, I think the term, and its use, needs to be seriously considered
before it means anything to me. 

[Arlo previously]
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?

[Platt]
Good question. My answer is, "Ultimately from philosophy."  Do you agree?

[Arlo]
I'd agree, but that points us back to "intellectuals". And it points back to how
a society is shaped by its foundational metaphysics (because philosophy is
never "absolute", it is cultural, and it is never reality, only a metaphor for
reality). You will always have disagreement, as I doubt you'd find universal
consensus on any philosophy, and that does have us being told by certain
"intellectuals" what is or isn't legitimate based on THEIR understanding of
philosophy.


[Platt previously]
Roads, parks, libraries, schools, police, military OK. EMT questionable.

[Arlo replied]
In other words, "let the poor die"?

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

[Arlo]
I was thinking more along the lines of equipment costs. We have (in my home
town) an all volunteer fire force, but they still need to buy trucks. Some of
the funds are raised through bake sales and other community fundraisers, but
those trucks cost sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, if we force
volunteer forces to raise money for equipment solely through alternate means,
what does that do for poorer communities where even a million bake sales
wouldn't raise enough money (because people don't have it). Do we let their
homes burn down? Do we draw on taxation from other communities to ensure that
all communities have an operable fire force? Obviously, I favor the second.

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

[Arlo]
Hm. Well. If a strong, good argument was made as to why the road HAD to be
there, then I'd be okay with it, provided the owner not only got fair value for
his/her property, but was assisted in every way with the forced move. I would
also not permit seizure until the owner was legitimately able to secure new
residence. If they are having trouble being approved for a new loan, for
example, the government should ensure the loan. In other words, the end result
of the activity must be that the person is in no way worse off than before.

Eminent domain for commercial enterprise would be outright eliminated.

Arlo