Ready to pay more taxes!??

[W19]

"You all just got a lot richer," Trump tells friends, referencing tax overhaul - CBS News

Fake news!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm coming from the perspective that private property is a construct. All accumulation of gains/wealth/private property comes at the expense of either natural resources or other people. Our governing bodies have constructed rules about who "owns" these natural resources, and have created both legal and illegal ways to exploit the labor (creative, intellectual, physical, sexual, etc.) of others. If it weren't for these constructs, how would you determine what your gains are? What gives you the right to claim any natural resource as yours to sell to another person? You discovered it first? You are physically stronger than anyone else in the vicinity and can kill them if they try to take it away from you?

Who grants you the right to claim any gains as your own? Without any rule of law, enforced by a governing body, there is no such thing as private property. At any point anyone who is stronger and smarter than you can come along and take your candy, that you took from someone else or that you created from resources that you stole from the collective good (i.e. the earth).

You might be okay with living in this kind of society of constant warring, unabated destruction of natural resources, and exploitation of the most vulnerable among us, but I would prefer to have a little bit more certainty and more structure to how we distribute and exchange resources, and hence, I'm willing to pay taxes to a government that is responsible for providing that security and certainty.



Income tax makes sense for folks who have higher incomes. I don't expect people who don't have an income or a very low income to pay taxes on their non-existent or low income. If you don't think poor people are contributing enough to our system in other ways, I'm open to discussing possible solutions that you have.

if your argument is that personal property rights don't exist without a govt then you are just plain off kilter. We had personal property rights long before govt, they might not have been honored by the big guy over the next hill but our property is our property...I would propose that your notion that all we have comes from govt is more dangerous to property rights than your fear of freedom

I don't want an income tax. But I do want consistency from you. If your argument is that all income is only possible due to the good graces of govt and therefore I owe the govt because I made $100, then the guy who made $5 also owes the govt. Otherwise your whole justification for income tax burden being unequally laid out is that the wealthy are outnumbered.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I'm operating under the mentality that there is a spectrum of "violation of human rights" and that taxation is on a very different side of the spectrum relative to slavery and genocide. We agree that there is an element of force and oppression in taxation, but I don't view our current taxation system nearly as oppressive or harmful as slavery and genocide, or in any way actually comparable in a meaningful way.




Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Fair enough

 

[pezdispenser]

Haven't read all the posts- but is there anything anyone is doing beforr the end of the year to save on taxes for next year?

Im going to buy a new desktop computer - I use it for work when on call, checjing email in evenings, etc. I've read to try and pay 2018 taxes early but I doubt I'll be able to accomplish that...

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

To deduct work expenses as a W2 employee, first you have to itemize, and they have to exceed 2% of your AGI (and you only get to deduct the amount over 2%).

Employees Can Deduct Workplace Expenses - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos

 

[ldiot]

The free market rewards the production of value with profit. That's a good thing. Private companies have a for profit incentive to raise our standard of living, innovate, increase efficiency, and add value in the marketplace.

By unproportionally taxing the wealthy, the government is undermining the free market by literally penalizing wealth creation and rewarding the lackthereof. In my opinion, the government should be doing everything it can to increase GDP and exports. Penalizing economic secess isn't a great way to do this. But I understand it is easy to demonize faceless corporations and the "top 1%".

The easiest way to lower taxes is not to redistribute the tax burden, but rather reduce spending. But good luck with that. If Trump takes one penny out of a government program CNN will literally say he is killing people and call him Hitler

 

[Zynx]

I would say rights existed before government in the sense that anyone can claim rights, but it would seem to be more of a matter of protecting those rights (and that is perhaps where the disconnect is arising).
However big your bodyguard is (whether its the government or yourself) determines how protected those rights are.

All income is only possible due to the graces of the biggest bully/bodyguard.
And I would hope that our bodyguard would prioritize income necessary to survival of the individual that earned it first, and then take their portion (if there is any) second. Meaning, I don't believe incomes below a certain threshold determined necessary for a certain standard of living should be taxed. Flat tax or incremental I don't care, just not below a certain threshold for a determined standard of living.

I'll tread into dangerous waters and say, while understanding the implementation is very difficult, a universal basic income for every household would be nice, starting low as needed based on funds and incrementing up to a certain standard of living.

 

[ldiot]

I would say rights existed before government in the sense that anyone can claim rights, but it would seem to be more of a matter of protecting those rights (and that is perhaps where the disconnect is arising).
However big your bodyguard is (whether its the government or yourself) determines how protected those rights are.

All income is only possible due to the graces of the biggest bully/bodyguard.
And I would hope that our bodyguard would prioritize income necessary to survival of the individual that earned it first, and then take their portion (if there is any) second. Meaning, I don't believe incomes below a certain threshold determined necessary for a certain standard of living should be taxed. Flat tax or incremental I don't care, just not below a certain threshold for a determined standard of living.

I'll tread into dangerous waters and say, while understanding the implementation is very difficult, a universal basic income for every household would be nice, starting low as needed based on funds and incrementing up to a certain standard of living.

That's communism and has failed in every stage of history

 

[Zynx]

That's communism and has failed in every stage of history

I agree that its very controversial and I can see the similarities. I suppose it depends on the details of the implementation.

I'm not sure about such a generalized and absolutist statement though. Some would take that argument and also apply it to other things such as welfare and social security.

 

[deleted480308]

Please elaborate on how we had personal property rights long before govt. I don't think that statement is true.

I'm not so much afraid of freedom as much as I prefer to pay a subsidized cost for security and certainty. Having absolute freedom from government and trying to recreate a similar level of security would be too expensive and outright impossible.

My justification for the income tax burden being superficially unequally laid out is because practically taking something from someone who has so little to begin with will be more damaging to that person [eta: and eventually to society] than someone who will still have a lot left over after you take a portion of their earnings, which should seem obvious to you but for some reason is not. My justification is not so much that the wealthy are outnumbered, but that the wealthy have more to spare.

our rights don't come from the constitution, the Constitution merely codifies a recognition of pre-existing rights. (i.e. I have a right to my speech regardless of govt)

I also think there is a flaw in assuming that the wealthy should be grateful to subsidize the system taking 1/3 of their income, while being told they never pay their fair share by folks who don't pay any federal income tax. You only get that system because the wealthy are outnumbered.

I would say rights existed before government in the sense that anyone can claim rights, but it would seem to be more of a matter of protecting those rights (and that is perhaps where the disconnect is arising).
However big your bodyguard is (whether its the government or yourself) determines how protected those rights are.

All income is only possible due to the graces of the biggest bully/bodyguard.
And I would hope that our bodyguard would prioritize income necessary to survival of the individual that earned it first, and then take their portion (if there is any) second. Meaning, I don't believe incomes below a certain threshold determined necessary for a certain standard of living should be taxed. Flat tax or incremental I don't care, just not below a certain threshold for a determined standard of living.

I'll tread into dangerous waters and say, while understanding the implementation is very difficult, a universal basic income for every household would be nice, starting low as needed based on funds and incrementing up to a certain standard of living.

You are proposing that anything above what someone thinks I "need" actually belongs to the collective? That's absurd and is a great argument for firearm rights. You don't get to take people's stuff just because they have more than you. That's a real basic principle. It's also absurd to pay people money just for existing. If you want money, provide a value to someone that they are willing to pay for...

 

[deleted480308]

One might say they have an ethical or moral (i.e. not legal) right to speech, but what does that even mean or look like without govt? The whole idea of the right to speech is that the government cannot punish you for your speech. If there is no government to make and uphold laws that either violate or protect this right, what use is your right to speech? How do protections and violations of the right look like without government? How do you even define speech in a way that is accepted by a group of people that you interact with without a common legal system?

Regarding this flaw that you mention - I agree that the government should be fair and treat all citizens equally. Government also needs to take into account that not all citizens are naturally equal, and just by where they happen to be born, have access to different amounts of resources. It is a delicate balance to try to ensure all citizens are treated equally when we are not all the same. Taxing everyone the same doesn't make sense when we do not all equally have the same access to wealth creation. That is not fair. You can say it's because the wealthy are outnumbered, but also because it is sound social policy. It is more than fair to have a progressive taxation system, even if on the surface it doesn't seem so to you. Again, because the wealthy don't have to worry about starving or homelessness even if they give 1/3 of their income, while those who don't pay income tax (specifically, but they pay other kinds of taxes that are less avoidable, so it's not like they aren't contributing at all) would potentially starve or become homeless if you took any portion of their measly income.

Maybe if we had a basic guaranteed income (because people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of how much material value they can provide), it would make sense for any earnings beyond that basic income to be taxed at a flat rate across the board, but there would still be uncertainties regarding adequate revenue generation, and how to go about the exact definition of income, and which income would be covered by the flat rate. It would be nice to simplify the 11,000-page US tax code down to a one-pager, but we would want to make sure it's at least as functional, if not more, than what we have now.

We don't at all need govt for a "right to speech", not even a little bit. The whole reason we wrote it down in the constitution was to keep the govt from screwing up what we naturally already have.

We could get rid of the income tax or simply reduce it to a percentage that all people would pay, what we have now is just abusing those who have better at life in financial terms (or those who had ancestors better at life in financial terms). It is by no means, in any way, the govts duty to make sure our fellow citizens provide for us. If we want something in life, it is on us to offer something of value to earn what we want. No taxed basic income, no redistributing.

 

[W19]

@giga

I argued with @sb247 about something similar... His basic argument can be summarized as a 'perfect world' argument, which will never make sense... We are not living in a perfect world!

 

[owlegrad]

ETA: Here is a nice image to help explain this concept:

But why should the govt take the tall boys box and give it to the short boy? I am sure the tall boy liked the view better on top of his box. Plus he is a big boy, I am sure he is very good at getting boxes compared to the small boy, he shouldn’t be punished for his box getting abilities. If you want the small boy to have two boxes you could donate one of your boxes to charity. It’s not the govt job to redistribute boxes.

 

[deleted480308]

We wrote it down in the constitution because other governments were screwing it up and we recognized that it is an ethical and moral right for governments to protect and not violate. Again, what does right to speech look like without government?

Without govt there is no one to violate the right to free speech, doesn’t mean the right disappears

Yes, there seems to be a complete disregard for the reality that, completely unopposed by government, those who are able to accumulate wealth create unfair barriers to prevent others from accumulating wealth.

You are proposing a false choice premise in which the only options are our current burdensome income tax system or abuse by the wealthy. We can have laws without an income tax

But why should the govt take the tall boys box and give it to the shirt boy? I am sure the tall boy liked the view better on top of his box. Plus he is a big boy, I am sure he is very good at getting boxes compared to the small boy, he shouldn’t be punished for his box getting abilities. If you want the small boy to have two boxes you could donate one of your boxes to charity. It’s not the govt job to redistribute boxes.

it’s none of the govts concern who has boxes or how many they have

 

[Digsbe]

Without govt there is no one to violate the right to free speech, doesn’t mean the right disappears

You are proposing a false choice premise in which the only options are our current burdensome income tax system or abuse by the wealthy. We can have laws without an income tax
it’s none of the govts concern who has boxes or how many they have

The system should not be looking to correct "inequality" by taking money from others and redistributing it. Everything should be based on merit with equal opportunity presented to each person. However, if they fail at that opportunity or chose not to take it that's their choice. The government should be focused on taxing the least possible with a small federal government that pretty much solely exists to provide a strong military, handle trade/foreign relations, and provide infrastructure. Let the states do the rest how they see fit.

I'd go back to my original example that hasn't been discussed. It isn't fair to charge a Mercedes $40 to drive on a toll road versus $2 for an old Chevy because the Mercedes is more expensive. They both use the same road to go from point A to B. I understand the reasoning behind progressive taxation, but there should be no people who pay $0 in fed taxes and for top earners there should be a cap of what they have to pay, because paying millions or hundreds of thousands to use the same roads as the guy paying in $200 a year is basically theft. It seems the meme of the day when it comes to issues is "let people do what they want so long as it doesn't impact you" in regards to social issues. The same needs to apply to fiscal ones. We have a major voting population of people receiving handouts and not paying taxes being allowed to vote and say "the rich should pay more and that money needs to go to me" effectively creating a parasitic voting bloc who want to influence government to harm others at their gain. I find this incredibly wrong.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I don't understand why people think taxation should be a moral thing. Capitalism is the most amoral thing possible. It's basically the white collar jungle. Amoral economic system begets an amoral taxation system. The reality is that middle and lower classes need more discretionary income to keep the wheels of capitalism turning. No consumers, no economy. It's really as simple as that. Fair ain't got nothing to do with it. When we get an economic system where people are fairly rewarded based upon their actual contribution to society, then maybe a flat tax makes more sense. But as it is now, owners of capital get a share of the wealth disproportionate to their value to the economic system. If that goes unchecked for too long, you get a degree of wealth stratification that makes the system collapse upon itself.

If anything, most of the people posting on this forum should be taxed more. It should be well over 50% for the highest incomes. If having the healthiest economy is your goal, anyway. If you don't give a damn and just want to keep as much money as you can and screw everything else, I can see how you guys see it the way you see it. Its's incredibly shortsighted, but, I get it, I guess.

 

[neoexile]

I don't understand why people think taxation should be a moral thing. Capitalism is the most amoral thing possible. It's basically the white collar jungle. Amoral economic system begets an amoral taxation system. The reality is that middle and lower classes need more discretionary income to keep the wheels of capitalism turning. No consumers, no economy. It's really as simple as that. Fair ain't got nothing to do with it. When we get an economic system where people are fairly rewarded based upon their actual contribution to society, then maybe a flat tax makes more sense. But as it is now, owners of capital get a share of the wealth disproportionate to their value to the economic system. If that goes unchecked for too long, you get a degree of wealth stratification that makes the system collapse upon itself.

If anything, most of the people posting on this forum should be taxed more. It should be well over 50% for the highest incomes. If having the healthiest economy is your goal, anyway. If you don't give a damn and just want to keep as much money as you can and screw everything else, I can see how you guys see it the way you see it. Its's incredibly shortsighted, but, I get it, I guess.

I hate this logic. Capitalism is forced altruism. I must provide you a service that you need or else I starve. That's not amoral at all.

I'll agree that taxes should be higher for those making upwards of a over a billion dollars a year. However, I think to say Capitalism is the most amoral thing possible when the countries that dont practice capitalism were the ones with most atrocities is distorting the truth.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I hate this logic. Capitalism is forced altruism. I must provide you a service that you need or else I starve. That's not amoral at all.

Altruism means doing something for others without your own self-interest being a concern. Capitalism isn't "forced altruism." That's rather absurd. Nobody goes to their job imagining how much money they can make their bosses while not caring what they get in return.

I'll agree that taxes should be higher for those making upwards of a over a billion dollars a year. However, I think to say Capitalism is the most amoral thing possible when the countries that dont practice capitalism were the ones with most atrocities is distorting the truth.

Depends. Musolini's Italy was a fascist sort of capitalistic. Putin is a crony capitalist. The freedoms of the average Joe can be excellent in both more capitalistic and more socialistic economic systems. I don't get why people try to compare economic systems with the presence of authoritarianism in the first place. They aren't linked at all.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Let's just continue to support laziness

 

[deleted480308]

I don't understand why people think taxation should be a moral thing. Capitalism is the most amoral thing possible. It's basically the white collar jungle. Amoral economic system begets an amoral taxation system. The reality is that middle and lower classes need more discretionary income to keep the wheels of capitalism turning. No consumers, no economy. It's really as simple as that. Fair ain't got nothing to do with it. When we get an economic system where people are fairly rewarded based upon their actual contribution to society, then maybe a flat tax makes more sense. But as it is now, owners of capital get a share of the wealth disproportionate to their value to the economic system. If that goes unchecked for too long, you get a degree of wealth stratification that makes the system collapse upon itself.

If anything, most of the people posting on this forum should be taxed more. It should be well over 50% for the highest incomes. If having the healthiest economy is your goal, anyway. If you don't give a damn and just want to keep as much money as you can and screw everything else, I can see how you guys see it the way you see it. Its's incredibly shortsighted, but, I get it, I guess.

ANyone who needs more income should provide enough value that someone chooses to pay them more

 

[wagrxm2000]

I want everyone to observe their Medicaid customers and ask themselves, is there anything wrong with these people that they couldn't make something of their life?

The answer will be there's nothing wrong with them, they simply are satisfied with using the government to support them.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

ANyone who needs more income should provide enough value that someone chooses to pay them more

Yeah...back in the real world, that isn't exactly possible for the vast majority of people to suddenly conjure up a way to "provide value" to capitalists. Human labor becomes worth less and less by the day.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I want everyone to observe their Medicaid customers and ask themselves, is there anything wrong with these people that they couldn't make something of their life?

The answer will be there's nothing wrong with them, they simply are satisfied with using the government to support them.

I used to be on Medicaid. My parents did the best they could. Unless you are exceptional, you aren't going to amount to much where I came from.

 

[deleted480308]

But it becomes irrelevant and meaningless.



How so? How do you create and enforce those laws without tax revenue, or how do you generate that tax revenue without collecting income tax?



It is though, because the government is responsible for protecting the rights of its citizens.

We went (from memory here) about 100yrs without an income tax

And no, no one has a right to “boxes” they didn’t earn in voluntary interactions

Yeah...back in the real world, that isn't exactly possible for the vast majority of people to suddenly conjure up a way to "provide value" to capitalists. Human labor becomes worth less and less by the day.

unskilled labor might be, so learn some skills if you want more money. (Trade skills, leadership skills, sales etc)

 

[WVUPharm2007]

unskilled labor might be, so learn some skills if you want more money. (Trade skills, leadership skills, sales etc)

That isn't realistic, though. There are only so many jobs and so many uses for human labor. If it was simple as you seem to think it is, people would do it. The majority of people aren't exceptional. You're answer for them is "enjoy starving." This is how the French Revolution started.

 

[Jbrl]

I understand the reasoning behind progressive taxation, but there should be no people who pay $0 in fed taxes and for top earners there should be a cap of what they have to pay, because paying millions or hundreds of thousands to use the same roads as the guy paying in $200 a year is basically theft.

Wealth redistribution morals aside, how do you address the problems tied with ever-increasing concentration of wealth with that proposal? On a utilitarian level, we would theoretically see decreases in productivity and growth if this trend were to continue.

There's a slippery slope here as well. I could see a future where, to reduce 'theft' as you've described, we give the upper class even better roads, better [private] schools, better police force. Why? Because they can pay for a different 'road.'

 

[wagrxm2000]

I used to be on Medicaid. My parents did the best they could. Unless you are exceptional, you aren't going to amount to much where I came from.

I'm glad you didn't decide to live off it.

 

[UGAZ]

I will pay less. Thanks, president Trump. My vote for you counts...finally.

 

[deleted480308]

That isn't realistic, though. There are only so many jobs and so many uses for human labor. If it was simple as you seem to think it is, people would do it. The majority of people aren't exceptional. You're answer for them is "enjoy starving." This is how the French Revolution started.

The French Revolution was also a situation in which royalty lived rich off a highly taxed impoverished class. I’m suggesting a minimal govt with low taxes, different situations

That's not a valid argument. We used to do without a lot of different things that now we cannot do without.

we can go back to that with a proper govt

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The French Revolution was also a situation in which royalty lived rich off a highly taxed impoverished class. I’m suggesting a minimal govt with low taxes, different situations

It's similar. Instead of a monarchy, we have an oligarchy that hoovers up the majority of wealth produced by the country because they own all of the capital. Whether they wear a crown or clutch a stock portfolio, its all the same. A small number of people enjoying the lion's share of wealth generated.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I'm glad you didn't decide to live off it.

Umm...you don't really have a choice. Unless you are disabled, that gets turned off when you turn 18. I had to live 7 years without health insurance. It sucked. I literally had to order Advair inhalers from shady Canadian websites because I couldn't afford them.

 

[deleted480308]

It's similar. Instead of a monarchy, we have an oligarchy that hoovers up the majority of wealth produced by the country because they own all of the capital. Whether they wear a crown or clutch a stock portfolio, its all the same. A small number of people enjoying the lion's share of wealth generated.

So? No one has a right to take something from others just because their target has more

 

[deleted480308]

No one has a right to take from the earth and to claim it as their own, and in turn deny others from being able to take from the earth.

As in no right to harvest timber from my own land?

Are you really going to double down on property rights not existing?

 

[deleted480308]

It isn't your own land, it's land that you stole from someone else.

I’ll bite, how did I steal it?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

No one has a right to take from the earth and to claim it as their own, and in turn deny others from being able to take from the earth.

I had no idea you were a libertarian.

 

[deleted480308]

Most likely by buying it or inheriting it from someone who stole it from the people who lived and worked on that land before them.

Or perhaps you can explain what makes your claim to the land more valid than anyone else's claim to the land? That you give someone money for it at some point in time? And that person you gave money to, what makes their original claim to the land valid?

So you really are going to go with the crap argument that no one owns anything? Please, do tell how you don’t have locks on your house and would never call the cops if someone stole your stuff because it isn’t yours

 

[WVUPharm2007]

So? No one has a right to take something from others just because their target has more

Their target what now?

 

[Zynx]

If we believe in the right that "you can't take from others just because they have more," means to allow systems where a few entities control the vast majority of resources, with a variety of mechanisms why those with less increasingly have difficulty with competing with those who have more as inequality increases (economies of scale, lobbying, barriers of entry etc) and have to suck it up because it is the "right" of the richer. I don't see the vast majority being in favor of such a right when 99% of the resources are owned by the 1% (leading to revolt).

I guess I am just of the opinion that there has to be some forced distribution of wealth to prevent extremes of inequality (both too rich and too poor). If forced to choose, I would prefer a certain standard of living over the right of ownership. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

 

[ldiot]

One might say they have an ethical or moral (i.e. not legal) right to speech, but what does that even mean or look like without govt? The whole idea of the right to speech is that the government cannot punish you for your speech. If there is no government to make and uphold laws that either violate or protect this right, what use is your right to speech? How do protections and violations of the right look like without government? How do you even define speech in a way that is accepted by a group of people that you interact with without a common legal system?

Regarding this flaw that you mention - I agree that the government should be fair and treat all citizens equally. Government also needs to take into account that not all citizens are naturally equal, and just by where they happen to be born, have access to different amounts of resources. It is a delicate balance to try to ensure all citizens are treated equally when we are not all the same. Taxing everyone the same doesn't make sense when we do not all equally have the same access to wealth creation. That is not fair. You can say it's because the wealthy are outnumbered, but also because it is sound social policy. It is more than fair to have a progressive taxation system, even if on the surface it doesn't seem so to you. Again, because the wealthy don't have to worry about starving or homelessness even if they give 1/3 of their income, while those who don't pay income tax (specifically, but they pay other kinds of taxes that are less avoidable, so it's not like they aren't contributing at all) would potentially starve or become homeless if you took any portion of their measly income.

ETA: Here is a nice image to help explain this concept:

Maybe if we had a basic guaranteed income (because people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of how much material value they can provide), it would make sense for any earnings beyond that basic income to be taxed at a flat rate across the board, but there would still be uncertainties regarding adequate revenue generation, and how to go about the exact definition of income, and which income would be covered by the flat rate. It would be nice to simplify the 11,000-page US tax code down to a one-pager, but we would want to make sure it's at least as functional, if not more, than what we have now.

Isn't the whole purpose of the right to free speech to protect us FROM the government? The founders observed government oppression elsewhere in the world, their intention was to protect the people from oppression. The very entity that threatens free speech is not required for free speech to exist...

A basic guaranteed income is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Firstly, the founders obviously didn't intend for this as they never even mentioned it, implemented it, and we didn't even have federal income taxes at the time. Nobody here is arguing against equality of opportunity, or equity as you want to call it, but that's not what a basic universal income is. A basic universal income is equality of outcome, not opportunity. Thirdly we already have government programs to pay for food, housing, and healthcare for the poor. No political or economic system is perfect, but history makes one thing very clear - Socialism and communism are diseases.

It's amazing that people living in the most successful country in human history don't know why it is successful.

 

[deleted480308]

Their target what now?

Target is the people/person they want to take from

 

[Jbrl]

A basic guaranteed income is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Firstly, the founders obviously didn't intend for this as they never even mentioned it, implemented it, and we didn't even have federal income taxes at the time. Nobody here is arguing against equality of opportunity, or equity as you want to call it, but that's not what a basic universal income is. A basic universal income is equality of outcome, not opportunity. Thirdly we already have government programs to pay for food, housing, and healthcare for the poor. No political or economic system is perfect, but history makes one thing very clear - Socialism and communism are diseases.

It's amazing that people living in the most successful country in human history don't know why it is successful.

The founders lived 230 years ago. I don't think they intended for the Industrial and Digital Revolutions to commoditize human capital either. Not saying that a basic universal income is the answer, as economic levers may take hold and push prices up without further government intervention, but your reasoning seems overly purist.

 

[297point1]

You can pay your property tax before Jan 1st, assuming you will be affected by the $10 k cap in tax deduction.

I'm doing this...heading to see the municipal tax collector today. THANK YOU FOR THE IDEA BMB!!

 

[deleted480308]

Your first two sentences are exactly the argument that I am making. Rights are only meaningful in the context of the rule of law. Governments, because their very existence can (and often does) violate our rights, have created the need to define these rights and to create protections against violation of those rights, i.e. we have grown accustomed to the idea that governments should not make laws that violate our rights. Without the rule of law, rights do not have any utility or meaning. If you disagree, I would love an example of what it means to have a right to free speech when you don't live under under any form of a political system that operates under the rule of law. If there is no government, there is no legal definition for speech, and there is no government to punish you for speaking out against it anyway. Having a "right to free speech" is irrelevant. You might still "have" that right, but in what way would it matter?

The idea that rights are something that existed before government is nonsensical (the original argument sb247 was making). Rights are a construct that came into thought as a result of oppressive government regimes and discriminatory legal systems. The idea that you have these rights regardless of government may be true in some philosophical way, but again, these are constructs that don't make sense outside of the context of living under the rule of law.

of course we're talking in a philosophical sense.....the notion of natural rights is philosophical

and having the rights is important, because when we talk about property rights it should be obvious that taking someones stuff because they have more than everyone else is a violation of their property rights

 

[deleted480308]

Of course having the rights is important, I never said otherwise. And I don't know if that's obvious. When I talk about property rights I'm talking about the government taking or not taking your stuff, because the government is the only one that could violate your property rights. Individuals cannot violate your rights (unless those individuals were granted some special status by the government that makes them above the law - but again, all violations of rights happen at the hands of governments/whoever is in power and is making the rules).

And even if we do accept some notion of rights that exist outside the rule of law, we are now back to arguing about how to define what is yours versus what belongs to others or to the collective, what are legitimate means for obtaining ownership over stuff, and how to fund a system that determines all of these matters in a commonly agreed upon way (i.e. creates laws), and enforces those common agreements.

an individual can absolutely violate my property rights. You come in my house and swipe my tv, you have violated my property rights. That's true with or without govt. You hack my bank account and take 1/3 of what I made this year? you violated my property rights with or without govt. You get ten guys and threaten to kidnap me if I don't give you 1/3 of what I made this year? you violated my property rights with or without govt.

You get the govt to threaten to imprison me if I don't give you 1/3 of my income? you violated my property rights, you just outsourced the dirty work to govt

 

[deleted480308]

Prove that it was your house, tv, bank account, etc. For all I know I was taking back what I consider rightfully mine.

I bought it (have the receipt) and it was in my house (have on tape)... you stole it and violated my property rights

 

[gwarm01]

I'm doing this...heading to see the municipal tax collector today. THANK YOU FOR THE IDEA BMB!!

What's the benefit of this?

 

[owlegrad]

Prove that it was your house, tv, bank account, etc. For all I know I was taking back what I consider rightfully mine.

I don’t think sb is fundamentally capable of understanding your point. Or he is deliberately misconstruing what you say.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Of course having the rights is important, I never said otherwise. And I don't know if that's obvious. When I talk about property rights I'm talking about the government taking or not taking your stuff, because the government is the only one that could violate your property rights. Individuals cannot violate your rights (unless those individuals were granted some special status by the government that makes them above the law - but again, all violations of rights happen at the hands of governments/whoever is in power and is making the rules).

And even if we do accept some notion of rights that exist outside the rule of law, we are now back to arguing about how to define what is yours versus what belongs to others or to the collective, what are legitimate means for obtaining ownership over stuff, and how to fund a system that determines all of these matters in a commonly agreed upon way (i.e. creates laws), and enforces those common agreements.

You're getting a bit silly for the sake of a point.

The *word* and not the right itself is hard to define without an authority structure.

Any and all theft is a violation of property rights, from a mugging to the USSR confiscation of property after the revolution.

Just like murder is a violation of the right to life.

You're using the word "prove" in the context of the American court system.

It's totally irrelevant.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I dont care about receipts. For all i know that receipt isnt real. If you really didnt want someone else to take it you should have made it more clear by upping your security system. Also, I dont believe in people owning houses, so me going into any house is my right. Plus i worked really hard to locate and carry out that TV, so i should get to use it now. You demanding the TV back is violating my property rights.

If only there were some system that created commonly agreed upon definitions of what entitles ownership and violation of property rights, maybe we could get this sorted out in a more civil and efficient manner. But until then, we can keep arguing about whether or not i violated your rights, and i will continue to make all sorts of ludicrous arguments as to why i didnt.

Thank goodness im not the one who makes up the rules, and that we have a government that makes it clear who owns what, and makes it illegal for me to just take your tv.

I could have phrased my original argument better. Maybe i as an individual can violate your property rights, but thats only because the government says i did. If the government doesnt define property rights or make it illegal to violate those rights, we would just go back to arguing about whether that tv was really yours, and whether or not i had a right to take it.

This is full blown Kelly and Associates Bird Law.

 

[deleted480308]

I dont care about receipts. For all i know that receipt isnt real. If you really didnt want someone else to take it you should have made it more clear by upping your security system. Also, I dont believe in people owning houses, so me going into any house is my right. Plus i worked really hard to locate and carry out that TV, so i should get to use it now. You demanding the TV back is violating my property rights.

If only there were some system that created commonly agreed upon definitions of what entitles ownership and violation of property rights, maybe we could get this sorted out in a more civil and efficient manner. But until then, we can keep arguing about whether or not i violated your rights, and i will continue to make all sorts of ludicrous arguments as to why i didnt.

Thank goodness im not the one who makes up the rules, and that we have a government that makes it clear who owns what, and makes it illegal for me to just take your tv.

I could have phrased my original argument better. Maybe i as an individual can violate your property rights, but thats only because the government says i did. If the government doesnt define property rights or make it illegal to violate those rights, we would just go back to arguing about whether that tv was really yours, and whether or not i had a right to take it.

I'm just going to say it. I think you're lying because you feel a need to justify the taxation system for the sake of the argument. I just literally can't fathom that you honestly believe you don't own anything without the govt saying you do, or that you have absolutely no rights in the absence of a govt.

Kudos for doubling down though, we'll just agree to disagree

 

[beautifulrobot]

I'm just going to say it. I think you're lying because you feel a need to justify the taxation system for the sake of the argument. I just literally can't fathom that you honestly believe you don't own anything without the govt saying you do, or that you have absolutely no rights in the absence of a govt.

Kudos for doubling down though, we'll just agree to disagree

The problem is not me believing that I own things or that I have rights, the problem is getting other people to recognize that I own things or that I have rights.