[MD] On taxes

[Platt Holden]

[Platt previously]
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. 

[Platt]
Proper laws could close the loopholes that concern you. 

[Arlo]

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]
Perhaps we can agree on Boortz's proposal for a "Fair Tax" based on 
consumption I would have to learn the details of both the Forbes and the 
Boortz proposals before commenting further.

[Platt previously]
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]
In principal I agree. But I have to learn more about bankruptcy laws and 
their effects to say for certain that both individuals and corporations 
should be treated the same.

[Platt previously]
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.

[Platt]
Is there a difference? :-)

[Arlo]
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.

[Platt]
Me too. What other term can we use to indicate intellectuals? 
"Rationalists" perhaps?

[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 previously]
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]
Yes, it's a puzzle with all sorts of inputs. But I wouldn't say it's 
always just "cultural' unless you consider logic and it's companion 
mathematics purely cultural. I'm with Plato on the existence of a higher 
order and reality beyond culture. As for absolutes, well we've been down 
that contentious road many times. I say there are, others think not.

 [Platt previously]
In other words, leave it up to volunteers (for EMT services) 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]

Depends on how you define "community" That's another word, like 
"intellectual" that's often bandied about without a clear meaning, and for 
political purposes, e.g., the Hispanic community.  That said, I'm not in 
favor of letting homes burn down, or killing unborn babies for that 
matter. :-)

[Platt previously]
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.

[Platt]

Agree on all the above, especially the rotten decision by the Supreme 
Court allowing eminent domain for commercial purposes. That should 
be reversed. 

Platt