Conquer Club

Electoral Compass is a much better simplified description of your political views in relation to the upcoming presidential election. More questions that have to do with today's issues and it compares you to the candidates (I just wish it had 3rd party candidates too...)

Ditocoaf wrote:

Cronus wrote:I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian. Government is a necessary evil. We need police, firemen, a military, and a judicial system. I do however believe we could cut government in half or so and be much better off.

Add education to that list, and I'd almost agree with you. And infrastructure; I don't think you'd disagree with either of those. And throw in hospitals, and we'd actually be in complete agreement... if you also mentioned welfare (greatly modified from our flawed system).

So that's police, firemen, military, judicial, education, and infrastructure (and imo, medicine and welfare).
Of course since to pay for all that we'd need taxes, and there'd have to be part of the government to maintain that system (voluntary-donation-only government would just be a tool of the rich). And to appropriate those funds to the appropriate things on our list, we'd need executive offices. And at this point a legislative system is unavoidable.

So our list has grown to police, firemen, military, judicial, education, infrastructure, (hospitals, welfare,) IRS, executive, legislative. In a perfect system, this might just about work, but that's like ignoring friction in physics problems. By this point, the bureaucracy holding all these things together is innavigatable... so nobody notices as corrupt politicians and parties take their agendas from lobbyists... who add hundreds of more goals to this relatively short list.

I'm of the opinion that "ideal government" is essentially an unsolvable equation.

I agree. I also agree that a large bureaucratic system is a necessary evil. I consider myself a libertarian leaning centrist because I don't like government telling me what morals I should and should not keep. If it doesn't hurt someone else, there shouldn't be a law against it. On all other issues I try to see the middle ground between the left and right.

Ditocoaf wrote:

Cronus wrote:I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian. Government is a necessary evil. We need police, firemen, a military, and a judicial system. I do however believe we could cut government in half or so and be much better off.

Add education to that list, and I'd almost agree with you. And infrastructure; I don't think you'd disagree with either of those. And throw in hospitals, and we'd actually be in complete agreement... if you also mentioned welfare (greatly modified from our flawed system).

So that's police, firemen, military, judicial, education, and infrastructure (and imo, medicine and welfare).
Of course since to pay for all that we'd need taxes, and there'd have to be part of the government to maintain that system (voluntary-donation-only government would just be a tool of the rich). And to appropriate those funds to the appropriate things on our list, we'd need executive offices. And at this point a legislative system is unavoidable.

So our list has grown to police, firemen, military, judicial, education, infrastructure, (hospitals, welfare,) IRS, executive, legislative. In a perfect system, this might just about work, but that's like ignoring friction in physics problems. By this point, the bureaucracy holding all these things together is innavigatable... so nobody notices as corrupt politicians and parties take their agendas from lobbyists... who add hundreds of more goals to this relatively short list.

I'm of the opinion that "ideal government" is essentially an unsolvable equation.

Well I would localize a lot of those items such as police and firemen already are. Education has mostly been the the purview at the state level (assumming we are talking about USA). The national effects on education I think are negative such as No Child Left Behind. Right now they fund 10% with state and local filling the remaining 90%. I think Federal funding should be stripped as it was not more than 10 years ago. Roads should be paid for by people who use them...so taxing income of people who may not use roads should be eliminated. While we have a gas tax that pays for some of the roads, it should pay for all. This way those who use the roads the most are the ones who pay the most. As a pragmatic libertarian, I view consumptive taxes as a much less use of force than income taxes. Consumption taxes give you a choice, income taxes do not.

One more thing I would eliminate is the ability of the government to increase spending while not increasing taxes. The budget should balance. You should not be allowed to punish future generation with the sins of prior generations. If you want things such as wars, then the generation that votes for it is the generation that pays for it.

As for the IRS, 90% of it is completely useless if we were to simplify our tax laws. There isn't a need for dozens of thousand page books establishing the tax code riddled with thousands of loopholes. You could probably come up with a tax code that could fit on 10 pages. Not everyone will like the changes, but the efficiency of the system is good for society....ok this is turning into a rant so I will stop

Cronus, everyone uses the roads, even those that don't. I don't know about the USA, but even here where a lot of transportation is handled by trains, you will still see those huge trucks everywhere, you know, the ones that transport all kinds of goods that you and basically everyone else will make use of at some point. Even if you were sitting at home and ordering everything you need you would be utilizing roads and rails.

Cronus wrote:You could probably come up with a tax code that could fit on 10 pages. Not everyone will like the changes, but the efficiency of the system is good for society....

Not so much actually.

The only tax-code that you could realistically fit into such a small volume would be some kind of flat-rate (or "flat tax") proposal (see: Hong Kong). The problem with such systems is that, while simple, they are inherently regressive and hit the poorest members of the tax-paying band hardest (as those on lower incomes have a lower ratio of essential-earnings to disposable-earnings). Sure, the rich love them because they save time and money, and because they can claim that their system must be fair as everyone pays the same percentage (which sounds reasonable at a simplistic first glance). But in reality, when you actually look at the effects such a scheme would have on various income-groups, the fact is that flat-rate regimes only serve to make life for the very rich easier, life for those at the low-end of the taxable population very difficult, and they provide an active disincentive for those who are non-taxable to go get a job and become part of the low-end of the tax-paying spectrum.

Basically, the flat-tax system isn't much better than a poll-tax... and there's a good reason that only Hong-Kong uses it.

Sure, you want to simplify tax-law... that's a laudable goal. But the truth is that it's a difficult thing to administrate fairly, and when examining the choice of two possible evils, I'm afraid that I opt for a bureaucracy that wastes a bit of time and money, rather than an oversimplistic system that makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer.



PS. MeDeFe is right, you should pay road-tax because you benefit indirectly from the stream of goods and services which are transported to you via road-freight, you also benefit from the speedy response times of the emergency services that use public roads, and finally, when you take public transport you benefit from the roads again.
Your alternative is to have the costs of your road tax passed on to private industry (or taken out of the emergency services budget), which would forced them to hike up the prices of their products in order to recoup their loss?

Also, my favourite story on why complex and differentiating tax systems are a necessary evil:

It seemed that 10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be, $10.00, each. The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay (using the progressive structure of the tax code). Using this formula the following payment arrangement was worked out based upon income.

Men 1-4 who made the least amount of money paid nothing.

Man 5 paid $ 1.00

Man 6 paid $ 3.00

Man 7 paid $ 7.00

Man 8 paid $12.00

Man 9 paid $18.00

Man 10 paid $59.00

After several weeks the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00. Their dilemma was how to divide up the, $20.00. If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back but they never paid anything for the dinners. After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.

Original Payment-New Payment-$ Amount Saved-% Saved

Men 1-4 paid $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00 0%

Man 5 paid $ 1.00 $ 0.00 $1.00 100%

Man 6 paid $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $1.00 33%

Man 7 paid $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $2.00 28%

Man 8 paid $12.00 $ 9.00 $3.00 25%

Man 9 paid $18.00 $14.00 $4.00 22%

Man 10 paid $59.00 $50.00 $9.00 15%

Once outside the men began to argue about the settlement. Man 5 said he only got, $1.00, while Man 10 received, $9.00. Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing. They said that the cut only benefited the rich and the poor got nothing. They were upset so they beat up Man 10 and left him. The next week they met for lunch as usual except man 10 did not show up. When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay even half of the bill.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Cronus wrote:You could probably come up with a tax code that could fit on 10 pages. Not everyone will like the changes, but the efficiency of the system is good for society....

Not so much actually.

The only tax-code that you could realistically fit into such a small volume would be some kind of flat-rate (or "flat tax") proposal (see: Hong Kong). The problem with such systems is that, while simple, they are inherently regressive and hit the poorest members of the tax-paying band hardest (as those on lower incomes have a lower ratio of essential-earnings to disposable-earnings). Sure, the rich love them because they save time and money, and because they can claim that their system must be fair as everyone pays the same percentage (which sounds reasonable at a simplistic first glance). But in reality, when you actually look at the effects such a scheme would have on various income-groups, the fact is that flat-rate regimes only serve to make life for the very rich easier, life for those at the low-end of the taxable population very difficult, and they provide an active disincentive for those who are non-taxable to go get a job and become part of the low-end of the tax-paying spectrum.

Basically, the flat-tax system isn't much better than a poll-tax... and there's a good reason that only Hong-Kong uses it.

Sure, you want to simplify tax-law... that's a laudable goal. But the truth is that it's a difficult thing to administrate fairly, and when examining the choice of two possible evils, I'm afraid that I opt for a bureaucracy that wastes a bit of time and money, rather than an oversimplistic system that makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer.



PS. MeDeFe is right, you should pay road-tax because you benefit indirectly from the stream of goods and services which are transported to you via road-freight, you also benefit from the speedy response times of the emergency services that use public roads, and finally, when you take public transport you benefit from the roads again.
Your alternative is to have the costs of your road tax passed on to private industry (or taken out of the emergency services budget), which would forced them to hike up the prices of their products in order to recoup their loss?

The problem is, that in the current US system, some of our highest-income tax payers actually pay a lower percentage of their income than some much less wealthy.

Ditocoaf wrote:The problem is, that in the current US system, some of our highest-income tax payers actually pay a lower percentage of their income than some much less wealthy.

... That just isn't true.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

...

Nobunaga wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:The problem is, that in the current US system, some of our highest-income tax payers actually pay a lower percentage of their income than some much less wealthy.

... That just isn't true.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

...

I'm not talking just income tax. I'm talking about the total (as close as can be estimated), after rebates and deductibles.

But perhaps I have been misinformed. I will double-check my sources...

MeDeFe wrote:Cronus, everyone uses the roads, even those that don't. I don't know about the USA, but even here where a lot of transportation is handled by trains, you will still see those huge trucks everywhere, you know, the ones that transport all kinds of goods that you and basically everyone else will make use of at some point. Even if you were sitting at home and ordering everything you need you would be utilizing roads and rails.

that's the beauty of a consumptive fuel tax...it is built into the prices of goods and transport costs go into their prices, so people who consume more than others pay more of the tax. Our current subsidized transport network has caused urban sprawl and an inefficient use of space that makes a car society necessary. It's why higher gas prices hurt Americans more than Europeans even though Europeans pay more but they drive much less given their proximity living.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Cronus wrote:You could probably come up with a tax code that could fit on 10 pages. Not everyone will like the changes, but the efficiency of the system is good for society....

Not so much actually.

The only tax-code that you could realistically fit into such a small volume would be some kind of flat-rate (or "flat tax") proposal (see: Hong Kong). The problem with such systems is that, while simple, they are inherently regressive and hit the poorest members of the tax-paying band hardest (as those on lower incomes have a lower ratio of essential-earnings to disposable-earnings). Sure, the rich love them because they save time and money, and because they can claim that their system must be fair as everyone pays the same percentage (which sounds reasonable at a simplistic first glance). But in reality, when you actually look at the effects such a scheme would have on various income-groups, the fact is that flat-rate regimes only serve to make life for the very rich easier, life for those at the low-end of the taxable population very difficult, and they provide an active disincentive for those who are non-taxable to go get a job and become part of the low-end of the tax-paying spectrum.

Basically, the flat-tax system isn't much better than a poll-tax... and there's a good reason that only Hong-Kong uses it.

Sure, you want to simplify tax-law... that's a laudable goal. But the truth is that it's a difficult thing to administrate fairly, and when examining the choice of two possible evils, I'm afraid that I opt for a bureaucracy that wastes a bit of time and money, rather than an oversimplistic system that makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer.



PS. MeDeFe is right, you should pay road-tax because you benefit indirectly from the stream of goods and services which are transported to you via road-freight, you also benefit from the speedy response times of the emergency services that use public roads, and finally, when you take public transport you benefit from the roads again.
Your alternative is to have the costs of your road tax passed on to private industry (or taken out of the emergency services budget), which would forced them to hike up the prices of their products in order to recoup their loss?

not true...you could easily have a progressive tax system fit on 10 pages. Just give brackets and rates and then list a dozen or so deductibles/credits. We don't need the convoluted system that we have now. Also, corporate tax rates could be a flat tax so we don't have armies of lawyers being paid to find certain ways around the law such as Wal-Mart owning the company that owns the stores but they then rent from at cost but then dedcut the rent from their profits eventhough they technically are paying rent to themselves.

As to the thing about products etc...see my previous reply. It would be included in cost. A consumptive fuel tax is a progressive tax as though who buy the most and use the most gas would pay the most. Poor people who don't buy as much and take public transportation would pay very little as opposed to now where a good chunk of their income goes to paying for services they don't use. The infrastructure network is mostly used by the middle and upper class yet we are forcing the working class and poor to subsidize their lifestyle.

Nobunaga wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:The problem is, that in the current US system, some of our highest-income tax payers actually pay a lower percentage of their income than some much less wealthy.

... That just isn't true.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

...

you're msinformed. Warren Buffet who makes billions per year has a lower tax bracket that his 5 figure secretary, which he has routinely complained about.

Actually, the majority of the tax code consists of deductibles and rebates for various things. Our government's favorite way to encourage growth in a certain area of a certain sector (whether it's researching some specific thing or creating a certain kind of product) without actually getting involved and being accused of socialism is to give tax incentives for doing those things. So the income tax is rather quite simple and I'm sure takes up a very small amount of tax code space. It's all the other small taxes (death tax, gas tax, etc) and deductibles that make up the thousands and thousands of pages of legal talk.

Cronus wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Cronus, everyone uses the roads, even those that don't. I don't know about the USA, but even here where a lot of transportation is handled by trains, you will still see those huge trucks everywhere, you know, the ones that transport all kinds of goods that you and basically everyone else will make use of at some point. Even if you were sitting at home and ordering everything you need you would be utilizing roads and rails.

that's the beauty of a consumptive fuel tax...it is built into the prices of goods and transport costs go into their prices, so people who consume more than others pay more of the tax. Our current subsidized transport network has caused urban sprawl and an inefficient use of space that makes a car society necessary. It's why higher gas prices hurt Americans more than Europeans even though Europeans pay more but they drive much less given their proximity living.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Cronus wrote:You could probably come up with a tax code that could fit on 10 pages. Not everyone will like the changes, but the efficiency of the system is good for society....

Not so much actually.

The only tax-code that you could realistically fit into such a small volume would be some kind of flat-rate (or "flat tax") proposal (see: Hong Kong). The problem with such systems is that, while simple, they are inherently regressive and hit the poorest members of the tax-paying band hardest (as those on lower incomes have a lower ratio of essential-earnings to disposable-earnings). Sure, the rich love them because they save time and money, and because they can claim that their system must be fair as everyone pays the same percentage (which sounds reasonable at a simplistic first glance). But in reality, when you actually look at the effects such a scheme would have on various income-groups, the fact is that flat-rate regimes only serve to make life for the very rich easier, life for those at the low-end of the taxable population very difficult, and they provide an active disincentive for those who are non-taxable to go get a job and become part of the low-end of the tax-paying spectrum.

Basically, the flat-tax system isn't much better than a poll-tax... and there's a good reason that only Hong-Kong uses it.

Sure, you want to simplify tax-law... that's a laudable goal. But the truth is that it's a difficult thing to administrate fairly, and when examining the choice of two possible evils, I'm afraid that I opt for a bureaucracy that wastes a bit of time and money, rather than an oversimplistic system that makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer.



PS. MeDeFe is right, you should pay road-tax because you benefit indirectly from the stream of goods and services which are transported to you via road-freight, you also benefit from the speedy response times of the emergency services that use public roads, and finally, when you take public transport you benefit from the roads again.
Your alternative is to have the costs of your road tax passed on to private industry (or taken out of the emergency services budget), which would forced them to hike up the prices of their products in order to recoup their loss?

not true...you could easily have a progressive tax system fit on 10 pages. Just give brackets and rates and then list a dozen or so deductibles/credits. We don't need the convoluted system that we have now. Also, corporate tax rates could be a flat tax so we don't have armies of lawyers being paid to find certain ways around the law such as Wal-Mart owning the company that owns the stores but they then rent from at cost but then dedcut the rent from their profits eventhough they technically are paying rent to themselves.

As to the thing about products etc...see my previous reply. It would be included in cost. A consumptive fuel tax is a progressive tax as though who buy the most and use the most gas would pay the most. Poor people who don't buy as much and take public transportation would pay very little as opposed to now where a good chunk of their income goes to paying for services they don't use. The infrastructure network is mostly used by the middle and upper class yet we are forcing the working class and poor to subsidize their lifestyle.

Nobunaga wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:The problem is, that in the current US system, some of our highest-income tax payers actually pay a lower percentage of their income than some much less wealthy.

... That just isn't true.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

...

you're msinformed. Warren Buffet who makes billions per year has a lower tax bracket that his 5 figure secretary, which he has routinely complained about.

... I'd bet money that that is untrue. How much of that is spin? Might it be that he has millions/billions in tax sheltered investments which reduce the percentage paid in taxes, while the actual tax base (which he avoids) remains quite high?

...

Nobunaga wrote:

Cronus wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Cronus, everyone uses the roads, even those that don't. I don't know about the USA, but even here where a lot of transportation is handled by trains, you will still see those huge trucks everywhere, you know, the ones that transport all kinds of goods that you and basically everyone else will make use of at some point. Even if you were sitting at home and ordering everything you need you would be utilizing roads and rails.

that's the beauty of a consumptive fuel tax...it is built into the prices of goods and transport costs go into their prices, so people who consume more than others pay more of the tax. Our current subsidized transport network has caused urban sprawl and an inefficient use of space that makes a car society necessary. It's why higher gas prices hurt Americans more than Europeans even though Europeans pay more but they drive much less given their proximity living.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Cronus wrote:You could probably come up with a tax code that could fit on 10 pages. Not everyone will like the changes, but the efficiency of the system is good for society....

Not so much actually.

The only tax-code that you could realistically fit into such a small volume would be some kind of flat-rate (or "flat tax") proposal (see: Hong Kong). The problem with such systems is that, while simple, they are inherently regressive and hit the poorest members of the tax-paying band hardest (as those on lower incomes have a lower ratio of essential-earnings to disposable-earnings). Sure, the rich love them because they save time and money, and because they can claim that their system must be fair as everyone pays the same percentage (which sounds reasonable at a simplistic first glance). But in reality, when you actually look at the effects such a scheme would have on various income-groups, the fact is that flat-rate regimes only serve to make life for the very rich easier, life for those at the low-end of the taxable population very difficult, and they provide an active disincentive for those who are non-taxable to go get a job and become part of the low-end of the tax-paying spectrum.

Basically, the flat-tax system isn't much better than a poll-tax... and there's a good reason that only Hong-Kong uses it.

Sure, you want to simplify tax-law... that's a laudable goal. But the truth is that it's a difficult thing to administrate fairly, and when examining the choice of two possible evils, I'm afraid that I opt for a bureaucracy that wastes a bit of time and money, rather than an oversimplistic system that makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer.



PS. MeDeFe is right, you should pay road-tax because you benefit indirectly from the stream of goods and services which are transported to you via road-freight, you also benefit from the speedy response times of the emergency services that use public roads, and finally, when you take public transport you benefit from the roads again.
Your alternative is to have the costs of your road tax passed on to private industry (or taken out of the emergency services budget), which would forced them to hike up the prices of their products in order to recoup their loss?

not true...you could easily have a progressive tax system fit on 10 pages. Just give brackets and rates and then list a dozen or so deductibles/credits. We don't need the convoluted system that we have now. Also, corporate tax rates could be a flat tax so we don't have armies of lawyers being paid to find certain ways around the law such as Wal-Mart owning the company that owns the stores but they then rent from at cost but then dedcut the rent from their profits eventhough they technically are paying rent to themselves.

As to the thing about products etc...see my previous reply. It would be included in cost. A consumptive fuel tax is a progressive tax as though who buy the most and use the most gas would pay the most. Poor people who don't buy as much and take public transportation would pay very little as opposed to now where a good chunk of their income goes to paying for services they don't use. The infrastructure network is mostly used by the middle and upper class yet we are forcing the working class and poor to subsidize their lifestyle.

Nobunaga wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:The problem is, that in the current US system, some of our highest-income tax payers actually pay a lower percentage of their income than some much less wealthy.

... That just isn't true.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

...

you're msinformed. Warren Buffet who makes billions per year has a lower tax bracket that his 5 figure secretary, which he has routinely complained about.

... I'd bet money that that is untrue. How much of that is spin? Might it be that he has millions/billions in tax sheltered investments which reduce the percentage paid in taxes, while the actual tax base (which he avoids) remains quite high?

...

you know I am saying tax rate and not total amount of taxes. For example capital gains and dividends are only taxed at a 15%.
http://www.phoenixwm.phl.com/html/taxlaw/page1.html

This is not a loophole but a specifically designed tax code. With most income taxed at a higher rate, a secretary earning only 60,000 a year could easily have an average tax rate of 20-25%, whereas someone whose income mostly comes from the buying and selling of assets such as stocks while making billions will have an average tax rate of only just above 15%.

BTW...how much you want to bet?

Nobunaga wrote:... Libertarian, but that quiz is a fraud. The Libertarian Party uses it to make people think they are Libertarians.

...

That's because we are all Libertarian! Just ask Glen Beck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3q7TxZj ... re=related

DaGip wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Libertarian, but that quiz is a fraud. The Libertarian Party uses it to make people think they are Libertarians.

...

That's because we are all Libertarian! Just ask Glen Beck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3q7TxZj ... re=related

he seems to be more of the mind that Ron Paul's idealism is impractical in the real word, which is true. Although I don't know why we are still protecting S. Korea. They are developed and have a much larger economy that the North and can certainly field a larger army. We can still protect the South from nukes from 6,000 miles away as we can from one mile away.

that was my image, but my page said libertariian

fireedud wrote:

that was my image, but my page said libertariian

I am a Statist too!