[MD] On taxation

[craigerb at comcast.net]

Platt,
Congratulations on the civil exchange with Arlo.  Did the meds finally kick in?  (Peyote?  Vision Quest?)
Craig

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden at davtv.com> 

> > [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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list 
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> Archives: 
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/