Go ahead and believe what you say. That's fine with me. I believe what I say as well.
Printable View
Go ahead and believe what you say. That's fine with me. I believe what I say as well.
No, it's not really slavery by definition. It's self imposed vassalage, if not serfdom. Anyone who disagrees with the tax rate in opposition to the majoriity is still forced to pay it. That is not liberty. Liberty is having the ability to control your actions despite the will of the majority, like free speech. There are no constraints on free speech, and the majority cannot limit it (other than yelling fire in a movie theatre). There are constraints on how you spend your earnings, despite one's lack of consent. Frankly to me it is immoral for the state to take at the threat of a locking you up in jail (and isn't that slavery, or certainly lack of liberty?) over one third of a person's earnings.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
That's a bit condescending, isn't it? You're saying that anyone who makes a choice to elect a government who will tax them is agreeing to serfdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
But there might be another motive at work.
For instance I might believe, in my post-Baptist, community-minded way, that it is my duty to contribute to the common good, for reasons that are both altruisitic (do unto others) and self-regarding (I don't want vagrants sleeping in my doorway).
There are many methods by which I might make that contribution but I reckon that the most efficient and wide-reaching is to get the government to administer funds that I supply.
In pursuit of that noble end, I vote for the party that a) says they'll take the kind of money I think I ought to give and b) say's they'll use it in the way that I think best. I know, of course, that this is an inexact specification, but I prefer it to any alternative - including the option of keeping it all and tossing the occasional buck into the Lepers' Tin at the subway station.
That's not serfdom. It's an informed and considered choice.
What if I don't choose to go along with that "informed and considered" decision? If I in the minority do not wish to have my earnings (that I earned through my labor) go to whatever, I have no recourse, and if I decide to not pay those taxes, I at the point of a gun am thrown in jail - jail being a lack of liberty. If you want to donate all your money to whatever you think is a great cause, go ahead and do so. You should be free to do so. Don't force me to pay for your desires. Get your hand out of my pocket. I have the right to keep what I earn or it's not liberty. I should choose how my money gets spent and used.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I'll repeat what I said above: Liberty is having the ability to control your actions despite the will of the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Which means that you think that universal democracy is incompatible with universal liberty.
Which, in your terms, is true. But then I think you have to come up with an alternative to democracy that delivers as many benefits to the majority without inconveniencing the minority.
No, a demoicracy with minimal taxation. Like I said, any taxation above one third of what a person earns is immoral. It used to be that way. Actually for most people in the US, they do pay less than a third of their earnings.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
By what established and objective convention is 33% the point at which the moral tips over into the immoral?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
It's the max reasonable number I can envision. A 50/50 split is obviously wrong. A person should have the right to keep more than what he is forced to pay. A 75/25 split where I keep three quarters of my earnings is about right, and would be my preference, but I'll be flexible enough to make one third the moral breaking point. Hey, you are free to contribute as much of your earnings as you wish. Feel free. I still give to charities, despite the gov't taking 40% of what I earn. At least when i give to charities I give out of the compassion of my heart. When the gov't at the point of a gun takes my earnings, there is nothing but bile that fills my heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Well, I think I can live with ponying up 50%. Obviously I'm prepared to take part in something immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
There's another part to this though - which is that what matters is the absolute amount you get to keep - not the proportion of what you earn. The market is the regulator of that. If the going rate for the standard of living for your job is 24000, and the tax rate is 33%, then market forces for labour will set the salary at 36000. If the tax rate goes up to 40%, the market rate will adjust in response and the going rate for the job will be 40000 - which means the take home will still be 24000. This will knock-on to consumer prices which will push up inflation and the economy will adjust, eventually.
Er - except America's obviously. You are where we were a hundred years ago. It's the last days of Empire, baby. Don't worry. A few decades in, you get used to it.
What about the people who only want to pay 10%?
Presumably they are 23% more moral than Virgil and a hell of a lot more moral than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Feel free to pay as much as you like. :p Even the mafia lets you keep more than that for protection money. Ever hear of usury? How much is it morally right to be charged in interest? At least you have the freedom not to take a loan. If the gov't at the point of a gun takes more than a third of your earnings, they are in the moral catagory of the mafia.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Who? Venice, Nepal, the rainforest countries, Kenya.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
To establish a business anywhere, a company has to apply for permits to build; they also need to apply for licenses to operate. So if you see McDonalds in Venice and Nepal, that's because those places wanted McDonalds there. Those places granted McDonalds the right to operate — McDonalds can't just go there and set up shop on their own.
Tourism is often how poor countries pull themselves out of poverty. They hire foreign consultants from developed countries to set up their tourism business for them. These countries seek advertising agencies and marketing firms, a lot of them from the US, to help them attract tourists and make money for their own government. If American companies are involved, that's because they are top-notch. These countries act on their own voluntarily — no one can force a country to develop their own tourism.
What does it say about the people who call others "fat, ignorant, nationalistic, vulgar person with no class"?Quote:
Many associate this vulgarity with Americans. The general stereotype of an American in Europe, Australia and Canada is of a fat, ignorant, nationalistic, vulgar person with no class.
By the way, in case you don't know, it's not acceptable in America to call others "fat" anymore. That's a form of bigotry. A company can't deny a person employment based on that, it's discrimination and a violation of civil rights. So that's another excellent example of how tolerant America is.
Infuriate is a strong word. Wickes, you seem to have a lot of misguided anger. That's Jermac's opinion (which happens to be quite accurate). America is a superpower not because of its physical size or population (I think China still has the largest population in the world) but the collective free, creative thinking of the population as a whole.Quote:
What infuriates the rest of the world are the sort of things Jermac said : "The USA is the most free, the most liberal, the most...". Americans still seem to think the USA is special. It is true that (atm) you are the only superpower, but that is only because of the huge size of the USA, its huge population and its head start in industrialisation. Soon China and India will challenge this dominance. So, to a lesser extent, will the E.U and Russia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
See, this is now an argument about ethics. You think a government that levies 34% tax is no better than the mafia. I think that a government that fails to supply its citizens healthcare free at the point-of-delivery is no better than the Khmer Rouge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
One could argue that every superpower in human history has been founded on technological superiority or economic might, or both. If the US is an exception to that, I think you have to show how.
But, actually, I don't think it is an exception. Until recently - say, forty years ago - the US was the most technolgically advanced and, because of that, the most economically powerful country in the world - for which we should all be grateful, because otherwise most of Europe would be speaking Russian.
Things are changing now though. China is flexing its economic muscles - and if you wanted to build up economic muscle, you could hardly come up with a better approach than China's communist-inside-capitalist-outside model, which gives you a huge amount of cheap labour at home producing an enormous volume of cheap goods to sell abroad.
And just about everywhere - but especially iin the East - hungry, flexible countries are becoming more technologically creative and accomplished by the day.
The trick that America is going to have to figure out is the one that the British took a century to comes to terms with: how do you retain influence in the schoolyard when you're no longer the richest, smartest and biggest kid in the neigbourhood?
We did it by swallowing our pride becoming best friends with the new dominant kid - America.