Fair Tax

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
]I tend to agree that beaurocracy has an unhealthy tendency to grow, and I've yet to see a good solution. Even the great '2nd amendment' in the United States has never lead to the people rising up against their oppressive government... they just accept more and more state control.

I would say that's because the state isn't truly oppressive. Yet. Which is why I fight for the 2nd Amendment. The old "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it".[/quote]

My position is that whatever you find acceptable, the original citizens of the United States would be pretty upset with the degradation of liberties in your country (even before Bush jr).

edit - i say that as a citizen of a country that has never been as free as the US used to be.

 

[flyfish]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: flyfish
The FairTax system is not perfect, but it is 99% better than what we have now.
My representatives will support the bill or I will not support them.

I love when people try to quantify how much "better" unproven theories.

Yea... those same people will try to say unproven theories like "Democracy" and "Personal Freedom" are better than Communism and Marxism...fools.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: flyfish

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: flyfish
The FairTax system is not perfect, but it is 99% better than what we have now.
My representatives will support the bill or I will not support them.

I love when people try to quantify how much "better" unproven theories.

Yea... those same people will try to say unproven theories like "Democracy" and "Personal Freedom" are better than Communism and Marxism...fools.

"Democracy" and "Personal Freedom" are unproven?!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If they did enter into contracts with Penn, and Penn upheld his end of the contract, then they were in anarchy to begin with. A state is necessarily a non-contractual entity.

However, that being the case, I think what is really at issue here is the fact that the colony was free of tax 'n spend schemes and other state-like institutions for about a decade regardless of whether or not they ripped Penn off by not abiding by his rules.

As for Lockean homesteading theory, that's a whole different ballgame.

More like immigration coupled with land ownership, if you ask me - they agreed to be under the governance, however minimal, of the state Penn created.

As I said, I don't see that a country would instantly fall apart if the state were suspended; but what sort of progress did the colonists make re: infrastructure, education, etc? Ten years is much too short a time to evaluate this.

So you do not believe in the Hobbesian myth of the 'state of nature?!' Well, at least we are making progress. :thumbsup:

Indeed it is too short of a time to evaluate it. All the more reason to give anarchy a chance now and see how it goes.

Anarchy has been come about on a number of occasions - each time it fills itself with governance in short order.

I tend to agree that beaurocracy has an unhealthy tendency to grow, and I've yet to see a good solution. Even the great '2nd amendment' in the United States has never lead to the people rising up against their oppressive government... they just accept more and more state control.

While I honestly believe that some government is necessary, I don't know if a stable equilibrium exists at all - it may be that governments are doomed to grow until they fail under their own weight, and then start again from scratch. But history shows that every time there is a power vaccuum created by the failure of a state, a new one rises up; if anarchy were a tenable option, regardless of (eg) my expectations for the efficiency of privately owned infrastructure, one can only imagine it would have happened by now.

The problem is that people continue to believe in authoritarianism and absolute authority. Once they stop believing in these things, then what Hans-Hoppe calls 'natural order' will come about. The state only exists because people believe it ought to, and they believe the state has the authority to do what it does.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The problem is that people continue to believe in authoritarianism and absolute authority. Once they stop believing in these things, then what Hans-Hoppe calls 'natural order' will come about. The state only exists because people believe it ought to, and they believe the state has the authority to do what it does.

So what's the differnce between 'state of nature' and 'natural order'?

Both are silly idealistic fallacies with no real meaning.

 

[g8wayrebel]

Fair tax works for me...nuff said.

 

[KK]

I'd rather see a basic flat tax across the board.

 

[Thug Esquire]

So what's the differnce between 'state of nature' and 'natural order'?

Both are silly idealistic fallacies with no real meaning.

Did you ever back this up, or just throw it out there?

(note: I'm not necessarily disagreeing.)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Thug Esquire

So what's the differnce between 'state of nature' and 'natural order'?

Both are silly idealistic fallacies with no real meaning.

Did you ever back this up, or just throw it out there?

(note: I'm not necessarily disagreeing.)

Did I ever back it up?

They're both philosopher's assumptions about the ideal state of society and mankind. Neither has any objective validity; given Dissipate's distaste for 'state of nature' I wanted him to give some justification for 'natural order' as a legitimate resting point for a political system.

 

[Thug Esquire]

Oh. See, that's why I'm libertarian (lowercase-l). I say let the people keep the money.

 

[dullard]

Money Magazine finds omission from the Fair Tax book.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

...the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same...

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

 

[Queasy]

To continue Dullard's post:

Let's separate the message from the messengers for a moment. The goof Boortz and Linder have made hardly blows apart the argument for the FairTax. A simplified tax code that reduces the costs of enforcement and compliance -- $110 billion in 2003, by Michigan Prof. Slemrod's conservative estimate -- would be an economic plus. And any tax that results in more growth would, by definition, leave you with more money in your pocket over time.

Some economists predict that a consumption tax could increase the average American's real income by 9 percent over the long run. Others say the numbers are much lower; it all depends, they say, on how you design the tax and the assumptions you make about how people's behavior will change. But few experts think our current tax code -- with its crazy quilt of deductions and exemptions, not to mention that nasty AMT -- couldn't be improved upon.

And although Boortz and Linder use the red-meat language of the right when pitching the FairTax, there are some elements of their plan that liberals ought to take a close look at.

It replaces the Social Security payroll tax, which tends to hit less affluent people harder. Rich big spenders could end up contributing more to the retirement system than they do today. And the other tax plans favored by Washington types raise their own fairness questions. Boston U.'s Kotlikoff, who recently argued for the sales tax in a cover story for the liberal New Republic, worries that other consumption-driven reforms will be a boon to the already wealthy.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The problem is that people continue to believe in authoritarianism and absolute authority. Once they stop believing in these things, then what Hans-Hoppe calls 'natural order' will come about. The state only exists because people believe it ought to, and they believe the state has the authority to do what it does.

So what's the differnce between 'state of nature' and 'natural order'?

Both are silly idealistic fallacies with no real meaning.

The 'state of nature' is something that has never existed. 'Natural order' has popped up in various times throughout history. 'Natural order' is simply a social system in which people stop paying homage to hierarchical political systems.