Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 26th, 2022, 9:57 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 26th, 2022, 3:04 pm
Well you are trying to lump fees and taxes into the same bin. Fees are, of course regressive or separated from income, that is they are as you described, keyed to the service desired. Whether driving on the highway, fishing or camping at a campsite. Taxes OTOH, go into a general fund that gets tapped for an incredibly diverse number of things. The key to tax revenue is to acquire enough resources to pay for what needs to be paid for. If the goal is to pay for services, would any logical system seek to get those resources from a part of the economy that doesn't have hardly any financial resources?

No. But if you can't collect the funds to pay for a service from those who benefit from it, then you re-examine what "needs to be paid for."

You throw around "fairness" quite a bit, but a flat tax is statistical sleight of hand designed to fool the simple to support their paying for more than their historical share. For all the talk of "leftist" this and that, when income taxes were invented before 1920, the taxation rates for high incomes were higher than they are today (in the post Reagan era).

I've not suggested a flat (income) tax. Income taxes are inherently unfair, as they bear no relation to the extent a taxpayer benefits from the services they buy.

When the income tax was first introduced following ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 the rate was 1% on incomes above $3000, 3% above $50,000, and 7% on incomes above $500,000 --- rates widely touted as innocuous. Only about 10% of Americans would pay any income tax, a fact which encouraged the state legislatures to ratify the Amendment. But, with no limits set in the Amendment itself, politicians, being the slimy creatures they are, immediately began to raise those rates.

And I think we all understand what "fair" means, in all cases except with regard to taxes. If you leave the supermarket with a 6-pack of beer, you pay for a 6-pack. If you leave with a case, you pay for a case. We'd think it unfair if the grocer charged us for a case when we bought only a 6-pack, "because we could afford to pay it." If you buy 10% of the stock in a business, you get 10% of the profits. You don't get 20% because you're poorer than the other investors. In short, a "fair" distribution of the benefits of a cooperative endeavor is one proportionate to the value of each participant's contribution to it.

"Fair (adjective):

(2): consonant with merit or importance : DUE"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

You keep talking about individual taxpayers benefiting (or not) from the expenditure of their tax dollars (like the fees we both spoke of). We're not talking about fees, the subject is taxes. The taxation paradigm isn't (and never was) designed to make sure each taxpayer benefits exactly the amount paid in taxes. Putting aside the impossibility of crafting such a tax code, that's not the goal of the tax code. Rather it is to acquire sufficient revenue to pay for what your elected representatives have decided "needs to be paid for". On a separate note,if someone has a problem with the type and/or amount of government spending, that's changed through the electoral process not by tax protesting.

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 3:35 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 2:24 pm

chewybrian wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:59 pm https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... ip-2022-11

This is a wild but sad story that seems to be getting worse by the minute. Musk (eventually) bought Twitter and then fired thousands of employees and threatened the rest such that now many key employees are choosing severance pay over the idea of working in his shadow. He seemed to think he could intimidate everyone into working double time in order to boost profits, and this strategy has clearly backfired on him to the most spectacular extent imaginable (he is on record as saying the company may go bankrupt, though he was willing to buy it for something like 40 billion just weeks ago!).

I think it is clear that these developments have not been good for customers, employees, the company or the rest of humanity. It looks like he's destroyed billions in equity and disrupted thousands of lives for nothing but perhaps ego.

I find all this hand-wringing over the tribulations of Twitter, as though its fate is somehow matter of transcendental importance, amusing. I've never used Twitter, never even visited their web site. If it, along with Facebook, Tik-tok, etc., etc. were to disappear tomorrow I'd never know until I read it in the paper.

Newspapers. Hilarious.

Of course newspapers. When I read GE Morton's posts I always think of Chuck from Better Call Saul.

What is hilarious is reading all the attempts to argue with GE Morton. He obviously frustrates many here. It is very entertaining. Like arguing with a huge rock, a rock with the words Status Quo chiselled into it.

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 3:40 am
You keep talking about individual taxpayers benefiting (or not) from the expenditure of their tax dollars (like the fees we both spoke of). We're not talking about fees, the subject is taxes. The taxation paradigm isn't (and never was) designed to make sure each taxpayer benefits exactly the amount paid in taxes.

The only distinction between a fee and a tax is that payment of the latter is compulsory, and the former voluntary. Both pay for services presumed to benefit the payer. And fairness applies equally to both. A tax imposed on persons who derive no benefit from it is theft, nothing more.

Putting aside the impossibility of crafting such a tax code, that's not the goal of the tax code.

Crafting a fair tax code is entirely possible. It is not even difficult. But you're right that is not the goal of the income tax --- the primary goal of which is financing free lunches for politicians' numerous constituent groups.

What one considers to be the purpose of a tax code depends, of course, on what one considers to be the role of government in a society, i.e., whether a "Nightwatchman State" or a "Nanny State." When it was founded the US government assumed the former view. As Jefferson described it:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
---First Inaugural Address

Rather it is to acquire sufficient revenue to pay for what your elected representatives have decided "needs to be paid for".

Ah. And are those decisions limited by any constitutional or moral constraints, or only by "might makes right"?

Isn't it a little weird that we're talking about taxes on a thread about Twitter.

Anyway, I'm completely serious about the following. I just want to get that out there.

It is possible to create a funding system for the governments that have the major currencies without collecting income tax at all.

Right now M3 (basically an estimate of the amount of money created by banks on a rolling basis) is about 22 trillion dollars (it's WAY higher in my view but we can go with it). The Federal reserve now holds about 5.5 trillion in Treasury securities and a boatload of other securities (Repo agreements, mortgage-backed securities, all kinds of stuff. For convenience we could say that it totals to 6.25 trillion bucks (it's way higher, though). Conveniently, the US annual Federal budget is about $6.25 trillion annually, financed with about 5 trillion in taxes and the rest net new debt issued by the Treasury. It's difficult to estimate the amount of Treasury debt that is sort of immediately bought by the Fed but overall, the Fed owns a bit less than 1/6 of Treasury debt.

Treasury securities are the most-traded traded securities in the world and (arguably) everywhere they are treated like cash with the only discount coming from market uncertainty. The total world bond market is estimated to be about $120 trillion. This means that, rather than taxes, the US could finance its budget (or some major portion) with debt rather than taxes.

What that would mean is that the government would create money the way a bank does. If the money supply gets too large, the Fed has the power to raise the reserve requirement, reducing the amount of money created in the private sector. Social Security and Medicare would probably have to stay off-balance-sheet for a time until the financing of the trust funds was stabilized.

If you look at the numbers, it's a little shocking to how easily the US could replace taxes with creating money through debt. Oh, I forgot to add that Fed Open Market Operations are just absolutely massive.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 12:47 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 27th, 2022, 3:40 am
You keep talking about individual taxpayers benefiting (or not) from the expenditure of their tax dollars (like the fees we both spoke of). We're not talking about fees, the subject is taxes. The taxation paradigm isn't (and never was) designed to make sure each taxpayer benefits exactly the amount paid in taxes.

The only distinction between a fee and a tax is that payment of the latter is compulsory, and the former voluntary. Both pay for services presumed to benefit the payer. And fairness applies equally to both. A tax imposed on persons who derive no benefit from it is theft, nothing more.

Putting aside the impossibility of crafting such a tax code, that's not the goal of the tax code.

Crafting a fair tax code is entirely possible. It is not even difficult. But you're right that is not the goal of the income tax --- the primary goal of which is financing free lunches for politicians' numerous constituent groups.

What one considers to be the purpose of a tax code depends, of course, on what one considers to be the role of government in a society, i.e., whether a "Nightwatchman State" or a "Nanny State." When it was founded the US government assumed the former view. As Jefferson described it:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
---First Inaugural Address

Rather it is to acquire sufficient revenue to pay for what your elected representatives have decided "needs to be paid for".

Ah. And are those decisions limited by any constitutional or moral constraints, or only by "might makes right"?

Not so much. No one said that there is a doctrine of "fairness" associated with paying for group services. Never did. You're just inventing the concept out of thin air for convenience. Thus conclusions based on this false premise are also false, such as labeling taxes as "theft".

Moving to your (and my) complaining about what our government chooses to spend revenue on, everyone agrees with some of it, no one agrees with all of it, that's the reality of dealing with extremely large groups of individuals with individual opinions. Though I am sure I'd be entertained by your description of a viable alternative.

Henry Case wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 5:05 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 1:32 pm ...and perhaps more germane, entrepreneurs who decide free speech (like Trumps lies) may cause public safety concerns, can not only ban that behavior or self-serving propaganda on their platforms, but can lobby successfully for freedom of speech laws like banning one from yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Take another hit on the crack pipe GE, you're doing fine!

Trump's lies? What about the lies about Hunter Biden's laptop being "Russian Disinformation"? What about the lies of Russiagate? of "Russian bounties"? of Snake Island, the Ghost of Kyiv, and Russia supposedly bombing Poland when it was really Ukraine's missiles?

Most disinformation on Twitter, including lies about Covid, have come from MSM and/or the government

Sure! Lock them both up, no? Remember, I'm equal opportunity!!

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 24th, 2022, 12:44 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 2:33 pm
Sure! The same people who 'created' a government with currency In God We Trust!

LOL. And I should trust such people to decide what I may and may not say, what is and is not "misinformation"?

Sure! Just like any barter system of currency we trust the value of reciprocal exchange!


BTW, the people who created the US government had a much different conception of the role of government than many people today.

If that somehow make your case, please shar the differences if you can!

Sure! Remember don't dichotomize reality. Parent-child is not mutually exclusive.

Oh, but they are, as roles. And you should dump that "dichotomize" theme (along with the "information narrative," "material narrative," etc.). Like most PM rhetoric they are pretentious and vacuous.

Is that like the primacy of the Meta-physical Will? You know, information systems that have causal powers!

You know, like those angry neuron's that caused families/people to fight an Insurrection!

Ah, still clinging to that category mistake, eh?

Sure! Was that category mistake caused by your neuron's, or did you tell your neurons to make such a mistake?

You're not confusing public safety with private safety, are you? BTW, How much "enrichment" is unjust or unconscionable?

Nope, just greedy people who engage in unjust enrichment at the expense of ignorance! How much? We the people decide, don't they?

Which people? Trump? Elon Musk? Bernie Sanders? Karl Marx? The astrology and creationism believers? The "woke" crowd?

All peoples, no?

Take for instance the cost of steel. When Trump put tariffs on imports, the US manufactures saw an opportunity to raise prices because of less competition.

Of course. Government meddling in the economy always yields unintended consequences and is usually counterproductive.

Sure! Particularly authoritarian leaders i.e., Dumper Trumper!

It wasn't Government, it was an authoritarian! You know, the likes of Trump and Putin.

Huh? Trump and Putin are not government?

I thought Trump was an election denier, who also embraced authoritarianism?

Are you sure everyone wants free lunches, or are you just projecting some vacuous GDP theory with no solution?

Yes, that was hyperbole. Not everyone does. But the fact that about 65% of the federal budget is devoted to them makes it clear that a large majority does.

I feel your pain GE. The deficit continued to explode under Trump! So much for right-wing small government!!

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 9:00 am
I feel your pain GE. The deficit continued to explode under Trump! So much for right-wing small government!!

Indeed it did. And under every US administration since the 1930s. Dems and Repubs alike are inveterate free-lunchers, both being aware that they must be to win votes.

"The total national debt stood at $27.7 trillion on the day of Biden’s inauguration, and has increased by over $3 trillion since then, according to the Treasury Department. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates 'the Biden Administration has enacted policies through legislation and executive actions that will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits between 2021 and 2031, or nearly $2.5 trillion when excluding the effects of the American Rescue Plan.' In comparison, the federal debt rose by around $7.8 trillion under then-President Trump in his four years in office and $8.6 trillion under then-President Barack Obama in his eight years in office."

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation ... 51596.html

(Other comments ignored, as repetitive, non-responsive, spurious, or frivolous).

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:11 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 9:00 am
I feel your pain GE. The deficit continued to explode under Trump! So much for right-wing small government!!

Indeed it did. And under every US administration since the 1930s. Dems and Repubs alike are inveterate free-lunchers, both being aware that they must be to win votes.

"The total national debt stood at $27.7 trillion on the day of Biden’s inauguration, and has increased by over $3 trillion since then, according to the Treasury Department. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates 'the Biden Administration has enacted policies through legislation and executive actions that will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits between 2021 and 2031, or nearly $2.5 trillion when excluding the effects of the American Rescue Plan.' In comparison, the federal debt rose by around $7.8 trillion under then-President Trump in his four years in office and $8.6 trillion under then-President Barack Obama in his eight years in office."

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation ... 51596.html

(Other comments ignored, as repetitive, non-responsive, spurious, or frivolous).

Does that mean you can't support your assertions?

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 5:11 am
Not so much. No one said that there is a doctrine of "fairness" associated with paying for group services. Never did. You're just inventing the concept out of thin air for convenience. Thus conclusions based on this false premise are also false, such as labeling taxes as "theft".

Huh? Are you suggesting fairness ought not be a consideration in the apportionment of taxes?

And I didn't suggest ALL taxes are theft, as your re-phrasing implies. Only those which pay for services from which the taxpayer receives no benefit.

"STEAL (intransitive verb):

"1a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b: to take away by force or unjust means"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

Moving to your (and my) complaining about what our government chooses to spend revenue on, everyone agrees with some of it, no one agrees with all of it, that's the reality of dealing with extremely large groups of individuals with individual opinions. Though I am sure I'd be entertained by your description of a viable alternative.

Who does or does not agree with it is irrelevant. Whether Alfie derives benefit from a particular government expenditure (for which he is compelled to pay) is an empirical, factual question. So the alternative is to assure that taxes pay only for services which unquestionably do benefit everyone compelled to pay for them. I.e., the government may not seize wealth from Alfie to deliver benefits to Bruno, no matter how many allies and cheerleaders Bruno can muster.

Unless, of course, "might makes right" is your governing moral standard, or if you perhaps hold the view that governments are "supreme beings" exempt from plebeian moral constraints.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:23 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:11 pm
(Other comments ignored, as repetitive, non-responsive, spurious, or frivolous).

Does that mean you can't support your assertions?

Oh, they have been supported, at some length. But those arguments don't seem to reach any neurons in your brain, and so you repeat the same nonsense already refuted.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:43 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:23 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:11 pm
(Other comments ignored, as repetitive, non-responsive, spurious, or frivolous).

Does that mean you can't support your assertions?

Oh, they have been supported, at some length. But those arguments don't seem to reach any neurons in your brain, and so you repeat the same nonsense already refuted.

Does that mean your own neurons were confused? Or were you telling your neurons to be confused?

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 5:11 am No one said that there is a doctrine of "fairness" associated with paying for group services. Never did. You're just inventing the concept out of thin air for convenience. Thus conclusions based on this false premise are also false, such as labeling taxes as "theft".

I agree with the direction of your argument but you're leaving something out above. Fairness under the law we call "due process". The "taxes are theft people" just don't seem to understand the concept. We necessarily treat people differently within laws but we don't, can't, deny them due process of law. People have to be able to air their grievances, ask for redress, insist on representation. If they fail, they fail. We have a 16th amendment. Anti-taxers can change it through the normal process.

I put the idea for a no-tax budget above (which is real, BTW) to emphasize how our Federal budget is really so large that it's a holistic financial entity. I feel that people who embrace the anti-tax notion somehow take the process personally.

Oh, and BTW, if you're an American making less than, say, $80,000 nobody really needs your taxes. Rich people pay the overwhelming majority of Federal tax dollars. After all, they have all the money.

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 5:11 am Moving to your (and my) complaining about what our government chooses to spend revenue on, everyone agrees with some of it, no one agrees with all of it, that's the reality of dealing with extremely large groups of individuals with individual opinions. Though I am sure I'd be entertained by your description of a viable alternative.

The government doesn't "choose" what to spend money on. The law does. Every expenditure has to be approved by the Congress because they have the power of the purse. In case where the Congress funds budgets rather than prescribing expenditures in a more granular way, that's the will or our elected representatives, it's a matter of public record and we can fire them if we want. Moreover, we can hire people who get into Congress with the stated purpose of passing laws that have less leeway.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:37 pm
Not so much. No one said that there is a doctrine of "fairness" associated with paying for group services. Never did. You're just inventing the concept out of thin air for convenience. Thus conclusions based on this false premise are also false, such as labeling taxes as "theft".

Huh? Are you suggesting fairness ought not be a consideration in the apportionment of taxes?

And I didn't suggest ALL taxes are theft, as your re-phrasing implies. Only those which pay for services from which the taxpayer receives no benefit.

[/quote]

Taxpayers receive a benefit. It's called "due process". The situation is simple: rich people have all the money, therefore they pay the vast majority of the taxes. On a related note, corporations must, by design and law, benefit their rich owners to the maximum extent possible (no, teacher's union pensions don't matter). That's a big Twinkie (Ghostbusters) and it's an overwhelming fact of American life.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:37 pm
Who does or does not agree with it is irrelevant. Whether Alfie derives benefit from a particular government expenditure (for which he is compelled to pay) is an empirical, factual question. So the alternative is to assure that taxes pay only for services which unquestionably do benefit everyone compelled to pay for them. I.e., the government may not seize wealth from Alfie to deliver benefits to Bruno, no matter how many allies and cheerleaders Bruno can muster.

Unless, of course, "might makes right" is your governing moral standard, or if you perhaps hold the view that governments are "supreme beings" exempt from plebeian moral constraints.

You're leaving out little things called Democracy and Law. There just isn't any truth to your argument here. There are plenty of pay-to-play taxes. It's not a revolutionary or forbidden concept at all. There are means tests and benefit numbers as part of every bill that appropriates revenue. The Congress regularly decides not to tax at all for a huge portion its spending.

So, the dynamic you cite doesn't exist except insofar as lawmakers have to decide what part of their constituency is topmost in their consideration. Primarily they are is almost always state-centric. Even the most liberal Democrats will vote for corporate subsidies and tax breaks if the corporation is located in their state and/or district.

There's a way to get rid of the 16th Amendment if you want.

Meanwhile I'd ask you to consider the taxless Federal budget I outlie above. It's not only possible, we and the rest of the Western world are heading there at speed. What would you say if money creation rather than taxes financed the Federal budget? We already finance about 2/9 of our budget with borrowing.

Finally, remember: rich people pay the vast majority of taxes anyway. Unless you make over $80,000-$100,000 your taxes are not very important to the budget.

Twitter seems to be doing just fine