[MD] On taxes

[Platt Holden]

[Arlo previously]
> And, I know this will likely reinstigate the "Arlo the Gulag Commander",
> but were I to support a "fair tax", I'd also support eliminating taxes
> altogether on the lowest 5% of incomes. This is not punishment for the
> "rich", but it reflects that the rich are the recipients of more tax-based
> services (see my note to Craig last week), not to mention social
> legislation designed to provide inheritance. No tax on the lowest 5% would,
> I'd argue, encourage "property ownership", and the movement "out" of the
> lowest 5%. (By the way, 5% is just an arbitrary number I am using, I'm not
> saying it HAS to be 5%, just using that number to make a point).

[Platt]
Actually I think Boortz's "Fair Tax" includes a government "rebate" of a 
certain amount of dollars per month to cover basic expenses for food, 
shelter and clothing based on some sort of survey of the going rate for 
such items. The problem, of course, is political manipulation of the 
"survey" to include more and more items considered "needed," much like 
what has happened to the minimum wage. Likewise your 5% (or whatever)
rate be subject to political pandering. Maybe that alone shouldn't  kill 
the idea, but it's something to consider because "buying votes" with 
promises of every increasing government largess is a temptation few 
politicians can escape succumbing to. (I love sentences that end in 
prepositions: they snub Victorian grammarians :-))

> [Arlo previously]
> 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]
> 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.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I think mathematics is cultural in the sense of "polar versus Cartesian
> coordinates". And, as Pirsig said about the law of gravity, it doesn't
> exist no where except in people's heads. This is not to restart a previous
> dialogue, just to say that (IMHO) the expressions of whatever higher order
> beyond culture exists is always cultural. If that makes sense. But, the
> point for here is "who's" interpretation of philosophy proves something is
> "legitimate" (function of government) for me and you and the man behind the
> tree?

[Platt]
Well, I don't think you can go too far wrong if you begin with the premise 
that freedom is better than tyranny (DQ vs. SQ) and let political 
philosophy evolve rationally from that. There are those like Stalin, 
Hitler and Bin Laden who will disagree, so then we fight it out. At least 
that's been pretty much the history of the West for the last 300 years, 
with some exceptions of course. It used to be that obedience to the Church 
was better than freedom, but somehow that premise lost its appeal during 
the Enlightenment. When you get general agreement on basic premises, you 
have a chance that you, me and the man behind the tree can agree on what's 
legitimate. (Note I said a chance, not an assurance.)

Platt