Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Fireball

Who Will Win: Marx Or Christ?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Source: http://www.capitalismparty.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14

Who Will Win: Marx or Christ?

In a rare interview a filmmaker inquired about my religious views. I revealed my views about God and religion, and this caused the filmmaker's eyes to widen with disbelief. Then the filmmaker asked me about my views on politics, particularly my views on Democrats and Republicans. After I explained my political views the filmmaker said, "You've managed to offend everyone! No wonder why you were banned from speaking in public and kicked off the Internet!"

After that interview I realized I had two basic choices. I could alter my views on politics and religion to be accepted by mainstream society or I could uphold my views and be shunned by the establishment. My decision will become clear to people who read the following material.

Federal prosecutor Barbara Olsen knew Hillary Clinton well when she was America's First Lady. According to Barbara Olsen, Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar and views people as incapable of making their own decisions. Hillary seems to think people require an external authority to make their decisions. According to Barbara Olsen, Hillary considers herself to be that external authority.

Hillary has made her home in New York and is a prestigious United States Senator. Now she can implement her radical agenda of left-liberal socialism. With a brazen evasion of reality and a meticulous elimination of honesty, Hillary is able to transfer the natural rights and powers of individuals to the federal government. One day Hillary might control the federal government if she gets elected President of the United States. This is all the more threatening since her husband Bill Clinton recently announced his intention to become leader of the United Nations in 2006.

What is revealing about Hillary Clinton is her psychology. Her psychology epitomizes left-liberal social democrats including John Kerry, Al Gore and other staunch liberals. Classical liberals looked to reality and utilized honesty to form principles. But as bad philosophy swept western civilization 150 years ago, classical liberalism was abandoned in favor of Marxism. In America Marxism took the form of populism and progressivism, which later transformed into modern liberalism.

Today modern liberals seek to implement the ideas of Karl Marx. That means modern liberals seek to undermine private property and capitalist elements in favor of the central economic planning of socialism. Remember Hillary's program for healthcare? John Kerry proposes a similar version of healthcare. His program of government takeover of healthcare will cause shortages of medical treatments like the Clintons' intervention in healthcare has caused.

Liberals are not motivated by reality, logic and honesty. They have one implacable goal: the replacement of capitalist elements with socialism whereby central planners in Washington dictate business decisions and citizens' actions.

When modern liberals speak in public, they unwittingly reveal their ideological ties to the most heinous people. As an example, during his 2004 presidential campaign speeches John Kerry talked about emasculating the war on terror, removing troops from the Middle East, socializing healthcare, mandating healthcare for all children, prosecuting businesses for "price gouging" and shackling businesses with price controls in the form of an elevated minimum wage. This kind of government takeover of society and the economy is supposed to bring about peace and prosperity.

Upon doing some intellectual genealogical research, it becomes clear that modern liberals epitomized by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have their ideological roots in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. That same manifesto gave rise to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hussein, Chong-il and other leftist commies.

It should be obvious that Hillary and Kerry cannot call for an outright overthrow of the productive class in America. Instead, they must work in a quasi-secret manner by employing a process of gradualism -- always moving America away from capitalism and toward socialism and fascism. After a century of this technique, which was mastered by the Fabian Society, America has become a government-controlled, mob-ruled social democracy. With a little more prodding the USA can be transformed into the USSA: the United Socialist States of America. That is the hidden agenda of modern liberals.

Hillary Clinton has made New York her new home and understandably so. New York State is one of the most liberal states in America. It attracts numerous statists while driving away entrepreneurs and business owners. This has been the case for decades.

But to Hillary's dismay, something totally unexpected arose. That something is a new movement that is the antithesis of modern liberalism. In fact it is supremely capitalistic. It is the Capitalism Party and it is based in New York -- right in Hillary's own backyard.

Enough about liberals; what about conservatives? George W. Bush is the epitome of a political conservative. Other high-profile conservatives include John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh. What is the psychology of conservatives?

Conservatives seek to maintain tradition and the status quo. The ideological base of conservatives is not the Communist Manifesto. It is much worse. The ideological base of conservatives is the Holy Bible. This mixing of religious commandments with politics is worse than the socialism advocated by liberals. Why?

During George W. Bush's presidential campaign debates and speeches, he openly and brazenly attributed man's freedom to God. What does this mean in practical terms? It means an ineffable being gives man his rights and freedoms. Since that being called God is unknowable and indescribable and ultimately indefensible, man's rights and freedoms also are indefensible. All that is needed to sacrifice man's rights is a handy expedient such as war or natural catastrophe or calls for public service.

Conservatives believe man's rights and freedoms require faith. They say you need to have faith in God or Christ. If you do, you will understand God's graciousness and know that he wants men to be free. Such an arbitrary position cannot withstand the rigors of logic.

From the religiosity of conservatives such as George W. Bush flow religious laws and government controls. For example, Bush is against abortion on the grounds that the fetus is God's creation. Hence it is sinful to destroy God's creation. Another example is Bush's prohibition of embryonic stem cell research. Bush opposes embryonic stem cell research because he is against killing God's creation to save potential lives in the future.

Then there is Bush's faith-based initiative that seeks to break the separation of church and state by providing federal funding for religious organizations. And more significantly, Bush and the religious rights in power are appalled at dismantling the religious-left regime in Tehran: the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. So the Bush administration targeted the secular regime of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq rather than confronting the theocracy of Iran. Saddam was a potential threat to America but the Ayatollah-controlled Iran has been a real threat to "Great Satan" America since 1979. More urgently, the religious state of Iran could have a nuclear bomb in a couple years from its nuclear reactor.

Political conservatives are grounded in religious mysticism. This is an unstable base upon which to run a nation -- especially the most powerful nation on earth. And remember, the 9/11 attack on America also was grounded in religious mysticism: the will of Allah.

In summary, left liberals are Marxian socialists rooted in the Communist Manifesto while right conservatives are Christian religionists rooted in the Holy Bible. Centrists simply are noncommittal pragmatists. Who will you vote for on November 2, 2004: Marx or Christ? I will pledge my vote for capitalism at www.capitalismparty.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that Socialist mentality is encouraged. Marx however I believe does not encourage becoming a christian. I believe people will take the two-for-one deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the long run, victory is the prerogative of the rational.

Right on!

As I like to put it, "In any controversy, reality is always the winning side."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will pledge my vote for capitalism at www.capitalismparty.org

This is the same nutty party that is promising immortality if we put them in power:

Chart #1: Projected Life Expectancy

2008 76 years

2012 99 years

2016 129 years

2020 168 years

See Capitalism Party Manifesto

They also ludicrously subscribe to the notion that "consuming wealth is a form of destroying wealth."

Think about that the next time you sit down to breakfast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush is against abortion we all know that. He has not banned stem cell research, he just won't provide Federal Funding for it. Big Difference! A Capitalist would not be for that either but for different reasons. As to the Faith-based organizations he just made it easier for religeous charities ( of which there are many ) to get government money. Not really the step down the road to Theocracy everyone makes it out to be but no worse than Welfare or any state run charity.

As to Iran, we had a good excuse to take out Saddam and the troops were already in place. Now we are in position to take out Syria, Iran ( which is now surrounded duh! ) Eqypt or Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were kicking us out soon and we needed a base in that region. Its called Strategy, ever play RISK?

While I agree Bush is no great hero of capitalism, he is a better choice than Kerry and since we have only 2 choices this year........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the same nutty party that is promising immortality if we put them in power:

Chart #1: Projected Life Expectancy

2008 76 years

2012 99 years

2016 129 years

2020 168 years

See Capitalism Party Manifesto

Fact #1: Nearly everyone on earth has been psychologically groomed to die by society's leaders -- political, religious, educational and media leaders.

Fact #2: Many people want to die to meet their maker or to escape the suffering of living in an irrational civilization.

Fact #3: The Capitalism Manifesto's assertion of extending human lifespan at roughly 10% per year is offending people across the social spectrum.

Why include this in the Capitalism Manifesto? In a totally laissez-faire economy, the government would get out of the way of entrepreneurs -- letting them do whatever they think is right (without initiating force or fraud). Some entrepreneurs will choose to produce and distribute commodities including cars, computers, clothes, houses, food, appliances and so on.

Yet some entrepreneurs will realize that in an unregulated, laissez-faire society, people will desire to live longer and healthier lives. Rather than being stunted by the mystical God concept and the stagnating welfare state, people will be completely free -- spiritually and materially. Rather than desiring death, they will begin to desire life, extended life, healthy life, youthful life.

Being freed of government interference, entrepreneurs can hire scientists to perform cloning experiments, stem-cell experiments, genetic engineering experiments, immunotherapy experiments and other biotech experiments with impunity. The goal of this would be to develop a marketable cure for fatal diseases and aging. The effect of this would be to extend the average human life expectancy from 76 years to say 83 years and then to 90 years and so on.

As long as people live in a laissez-faire society, individual citizens will retain the right to reject increased lifespan. Those who do will be free to commit suicide, including hiring a doctor for assisted suicide. But they cannot use the government to restrict scientific progress and entrepreneurial activity to prevent everyone else from experiencing increased lifespan. Laissez-faire capitalism is pro-life in the literal sense.

They also ludicrously subscribe to the notion that "consuming wealth is a form of destroying wealth."

Think about that the next time you sit down to breakfast.

That is a contextual statement regarding the philosophy of taxation. Clearly consuming goods to remain alive and well is not destroying wealth. Hence a consumption tax probably would not include basic necessities of life like food.

Remember, the tax policy a government implements will influence commerce and society. If the government taxes the production of wealth, there is a disincentive to be productive, to accumulate capital, to expand production, to create jobs, to build wealth. Moreover, progressive taxation penalizes people in direct proportion to their productive ability. This is improper.

If the government taxes the destruction of wealth, there is a disincentive to be wasteful. There would be no need to engage in wasteful spending to reduce one's tax obligation as exists now. With a consumption tax people still can buy a $500 office chair. But they would pay, say, a 5% national sales tax, which would mean $25 would go to the federal government as operating revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact #1: Nearly everyone on earth has been psychologically groomed to die by society's leaders -- political, religious, educational and media leaders.

This is not a question of what people are "psychologically groomed" to do. The issue is your spectacular claims for longevity. Here's what the Capitalism Party promises: life expectancy will be 76 years in 2008 and 99 years in 2012. Why not claim it will be 109 or 209 in 2012? It is quite evident that you're pulling numbers out of a hat. Let’s see some proof for these assertions.

Remember, the tax policy a government implements will influence commerce and society. If the government taxes the production of wealth, there is a disincentive to be productive, to accumulate capital, to expand production, to create jobs, to build wealth. Moreover, progressive taxation penalizes people in direct proportion to their productive ability. This is improper.

But taxing expenditures is no less improper. What good is my acquiring money if the government penalizes me every time I spend it? Uncle Sam currently taxes us coming and going. You have not presented any economic logic for the superiority of a tax on outgo rather than income.

If the government taxes the destruction of wealth, there is a disincentive to be wasteful. There would be no need to engage in wasteful spending to reduce one's tax obligation as exists now. With a consumption tax people still can buy a $500 office chair. But they would pay, say, a 5% national sales tax, which would mean $25 would go to the federal government as operating revenue.

Why should we consider the purchase of a new car or a new house or new clothes wasteful? That is a completely arbitrary characterization. In fact, the owners of the new house, car and clothes may regard their lives as being greatly improved as a result of those purchases. What sort of economy do you suppose we’d have if the government succeeded in a big way at getting people to stop acquiring goods? (If you need a hint, visit a Trappist monastery or North Korea.) If the Capitalism Party regards buying things as “wasteful” and the “destruction of wealth,” then an immediate name change is in order. Why not call yourselves the Anti-Consumption Party or the Self-Denial Party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not a question of what people are "psychologically groomed" to do.  The issue is your spectacular claims for longevity.  Here's what the Capitalism Party promises: life expectancy will be 76 years in 2008 and 99 years in 2012.  Why not claim it will be 109 or 209 in 2012?  It is quite evident that you're pulling numbers out of a hat.  Let’s see some proof for these assertions.

Scientific research at Baylor University and elsewhere has revealed that a simple alteration of the genetic structure can yield up to a 30% extension in lifespan. Other scientific approaches indicate that lifespan can be extended. See the following references:

1. A Future of Human Longevity, Science Magazine, 4/17/1998, page 395

2. Extension of Life-Span by Introduction of Telomerase, Science Magazine, 1/16/1998, page 349

3. Immortality Gene Discovered, Science Magazine, 1/9/1998, page 177

It is important to realize that the average person would balk at this kind of one-time jump in longevity. He or she would decry the "harm" it will cause to the Social Security fund, overpopulation, the environment, etc. So those figures in the manifesto have been toned down to less than 10% per year. Even so, they are projections not guarantees.

But taxing expenditures is no less improper.  What good is my acquiring money if the government penalizes me every time I spend it?  Uncle Sam currently taxes us coming and going.  You have not presented any economic logic for the superiority of a tax on outgo rather than income.
I am with you here. I dislike all taxation but I recognize the need for a consistent and reliable source of revenue to operate the federal government.

Abolishing all income taxes will allow producers to earn, save and invest as much money as they want. While a consumption tax is not perfect, it does allow choice among citizens; if they do not want to pay a particular tax they can forgo buying the product.

Originally America's federal government was financed through a consumption tax on goods including sugar, tobacco, alcohol, carriages and auctioned property. It worked fine until the government began expanding in size and scope. If the federal government can be delimited to military and legal protection, then perhaps we can return to a consumption tax to finance government. If anyone has a better alternative to finance the government I am willing to hear it.

Why should we consider the purchase of a new car or a new house or new clothes wasteful?  That is a completely arbitrary characterization.  In fact, the owners of the new house, car and clothes may regard their lives as being greatly improved as a result of those purchases.

As stated previously, goods that keep us alive and well are not considered wasteful. But current income tax policies encourage businesses and corporations to spend excessively to reduce their tax burdens. That wasteful spending would diminish under a consumption tax.

What sort of economy do you suppose we’d have if the government succeeded in a big way at getting people to stop acquiring goods?  (If you need a hint, visit a Trappist monastery or North Korea.)  If the Capitalism Party regards buying things as “wasteful” and the “destruction of wealth,” then an immediate name change is in order.  Why not call yourselves the Anti-Consumption Party or the Self-Denial Party?

You are switching the intention of a consumption tax from financing government to stopping the sales of goods. If the intention, goal and essence of a political party was to prohibit the sale of goods, then the Anti-Consumption Party would be an accurate name. But that is not the goal or essence of the Capitalism Party. The goal is to free producers from parasites including the kleptocratic IRS. Let the producers produce and accumulate wealth without limits. This will enable them to reinvest earned income into production, thereby raising wages and lowering the prices of finished goods. Workers will easily be able to afford a flat 5% federal sales tax on goods -- especially when they take home 100% of their earnings, are paid well and the price of goods steadily decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientific research at Baylor University and elsewhere has revealed that a simple alteration of the genetic structure can yield up to a 30% extension in lifespan. Other scientific approaches indicate that lifespan can be extended.

But where is the proof that this “simple alteration of the genetic structure” will take place during the Capitalism Party’s first administration? First of all, it is far from clear that present day researchers don’t have the freedom to perform this allegedly simple alteration that will extend our lifespans. More importantly, giving one the freedom to achieve a scientific breakthrough offers no certainty of a breakthrough. With a similar disregard for evidence, I could declare that if Charlotte Corday is elected President, we’ll be traveling faster than the speed of light by 2012!

I am with you here. I dislike all taxation but I recognize the need for a consistent and reliable source of revenue to operate the federal government.

Abolishing all income taxes will allow producers to earn, save and invest as much money as they want. While a consumption tax is not perfect, it does allow choice among citizens; if they do not want to pay a particular tax they can forgo buying the product.

If your defense of the consumption tax rests on choice, then it is no improvement over the income tax, which also allows choice: if you do not want to pay a higher income tax, you can forego accepting a wage increase.

Originally America's federal government was financed through a consumption tax on goods including sugar, tobacco, alcohol, carriages and auctioned property. It worked fine until the government began expanding in size and scope.

Actually, government financing did not “work fine” in the early part of the nation’s history. Tariffs, which were especially burdensome to the South and beneficial to powerful Northern interests, were the chief source of strife between the states. These taxes on goods led to South Carolina’s Nullification Act of 1832 and eventually to Southern secession in 1861.

If the federal government can be delimited to military and legal protection, then perhaps we can return to a consumption tax to finance government. If anyone has a better alternative to finance the government I am willing to hear it.

First of all, there is no economic reason why a consumption tax could not be substituted for the income tax without first reducing the size of the government. But the fundamental argument against such a tax does not differ from arguments against the present tax structure: when taxes fall more heavily on a certain stratum of the populace, while government disbursements are made without regard to the recipients’ contribution to government revenue, then wealth redistribution is accomplished. This leads us to the great insight of the Public Choice School: when leaders are popularly elected, and net tax consumers form a voting majority, voters have no incentive to reduce taxation, and the burden on net tax producers will tend to increase.

As stated previously, goods that keep us alive and well are not considered wasteful. But current income tax policies encourage businesses and corporations to spend excessively to reduce their tax burdens. That wasteful spending would diminish under a consumption tax.

Are goods that improve the quality of our lives and make us happier “wasteful”? What about indoor plumbing? Isn’t it “wasteful” to spend money on installing a flush toilet when an outhouse would work just as well?

You are switching the intention of a consumption tax from financing government to stopping the sales of goods.

I didn’t say they would stop. However, one of the great truths of economics is that you discourage whatever you tax. And apparently, it is “wasteful” spending on ourselves that you wish to discourage.

If the intention, goal and essence of a political party was to prohibit the sale of goods, then the Anti-Consumption Party would be an accurate name. But that is not the goal or essence of the Capitalism Party. The goal is to free producers from parasites including the kleptocratic IRS.

Well, it is clear that you wish to impose a penalty on those who spend (just as the government currently penalizes smokers with a tax), otherwise there would be no tax at all on spending. And if the IRS is “kleptocratic” for taxing earnings, why would it not be equally “kleptocratic” for taxing spending?

Let the producers produce and accumulate wealth without limits.

The problem is that a consumption tax does impose limits on the ability of producers to sell. If there is no consumption tax, then buyers of automobiles would pay no penalty for their purchase. But a tax on automobiles makes a purchase out of the reach of some buyers. This in turn effects the ability of producers to market their goods.

This will enable them to reinvest earned income into production, thereby raising wages and lowering the prices of finished goods. Workers will easily be able to afford a flat 5% federal sales tax on goods -- especially when they take home 100% of their earnings, are paid well and the price of goods steadily decline.

This is no different than saying workers will easily be able to afford a flat 5% federal income tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But where is the proof that this “simple alteration of the genetic structure” will take place during the Capitalism Party’s first administration?

There is no proof or guarantee. This merely is a projection. The CP operates on the explicit policy of not funding science nor regulating any aspect of it nor condemning any research such as cloning or stem-cell research. In such a free scientific milieu, some daring entrepreneurs will likely take the necessary risks to create longevity products and treatments without fear of ending up in prison like Sam Waksal.

First of all, it is far from clear that present day researchers don’t have the freedom to perform this allegedly simple alteration that will extend our lifespans.

That is why they do not do it. This ambiguity combined with moral denouncements of "playing god" and the reams of non-objective laws waiting to be enforced by government prosecutors leaves all such daring but vital projects on the shelf. Sam Waksal was one of the few brave souls who dared to defy the establishment's view of life: he created a cure that would lengthen human lifespan. Today he is rotting in prison and probably will die there. Martha Stewart partially financed him and she too is in prison, to be followed up with house arrest, from a conviction directly involved with her role in financing Waksal's work.

More importantly, giving one the freedom to achieve a scientific breakthrough offers no certainty of a breakthrough. With a similar disregard for evidence, I could declare that if Charlotte Corday is elected President, we’ll be traveling faster than the speed of light by 2012!

There are no sound theories or experimental evidence showing that entities can travel faster than the cosmological constant. Thus regardless if you assemble a capitalist or communist administration, no one can travel faster than c (light speed).

If your defense of the consumption tax rests on choice, then it is no improvement over the income tax, which also allows choice:  if you do not want to pay a higher income tax, you can forego accepting a wage increase.

It is easier to refrain from buying certain goods to avoid paying taxes than it is to work for less than the market will pay you.

Actually, government financing did not “work fine” in the early part of the nation’s history.  Tariffs, which were especially burdensome to the South and beneficial to powerful Northern interests, were the chief source of strife between the states.  These taxes on goods led to South Carolina’s Nullification Act of 1832 and eventually to Southern secession in 1861.

I was referring to excise taxes used to generate federal revenue during the first nine years of the United States in the late eighteenth century. The CP is against all forms of protectionism including tariffs. In the case you mentioned above, tariffs were implemented for political reasons for the North to subdue the South. A national sales tax would be non-political and apply to all 50 states for the purpose of funding the federal government.

Are goods that improve the quality of our lives and make us happier “wasteful”?  What about indoor plumbing?  Isn’t it “wasteful” to spend money on installing a flush toilet when an outhouse would work just as well?

No it is not wasteful to improve the quality of our lives. Wealth destruction occurs under the current income tax system that provides incentives for a corporation to buy two corporate jets when only one is needed; the other one reduces tax liability but the money could have been used more productively in the absence of income taxes.

However, one of the great truths of economics is that you discourage whatever you tax.

Whoever holds productivity as a virtue can see the irrationality of our current production tax (since 1913).

And apparently, it is “wasteful” spending on ourselves that you wish to discourage.

The assertion in the CP manifesto about discouraging wealth destruction implicitly refers to not encouraging the dissipation of earned wealth on wasteful projects to reduce tax liabilities. Spending money on oneself for new clothes, a new car, a new home, fresh food, education, etc. is not considered wasteful or destructive by the CP.

Well, it is clear that you wish to impose a penalty on those who spend (just as the government currently penalizes smokers with a tax), otherwise there would be no tax at all on spending.

The purpose of the consumption tax is to shift the tax burden away from production and toward consumption. If someone could come up with a viable method that would provide a reliable source of funding for military and legal protection, the CP would abolish all taxes -- both production and consumption taxes.

And if the IRS is “kleptocratic” for taxing earnings, why would it not be equally “kleptocratic” for taxing spending?

The income tax system utilizes 20,000 pages of arbitrary rules and regulations (US Code 26), an army of armed bureaucrats (CID), juryless tax courts and time-draining paperwork that can be used against citizens in court (violating the 5th Amendment). This gives the federal government unlimited power to search the property and person of every American for any reason and confiscate tangible property, put a lien on homes, freeze bank accounts and bludgeon citizens.

With a federal sales tax system, citizens do not file tax returns. There are no 1040 forms, no tax code, no Criminal Investigation Division, no tax courts, no Internal Revenue Service, no government brownshirts and no political witch-hunts under the guise of taxes. Whatever you buy has a federal tax built into the price. April 15th becomes just another day.

The drawbacks of a federal sales tax are:

1) It reduces workers' purchasing power by raising prices of goods and services.

2) It requires businesses to collect and send this tax to the government.

The drawbacks of a federal income tax are:

1) It reduces workers' purchasing power by extracting a portion of each worker's earnings.

2) It requires business owners and workers to file complicated tax forms and send this tax to the government.

3) It siphons off earned money from businesses and individuals, thereby crippling the ability of corporations and citizens to accumulate wealth.

4) Businesses that transfer earnings to the government cannot invest that money into maintaining and upgrading capital equipment, which would make each employee more productive and thus increase each employee's wages.

5) The non-objective tax code enables politicians and bureaucrats to prosecute unpopular citizens like Leona Helmsley, Irwin Schiff and Reuben Sturman -- locking them up in prison even though they never committed an objective crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no proof or guarantee. This merely is a projection.

Here’s my projection: life expectancy will not increase at a rate during the first 12 years of the Capitalism Party’s administration significantly greater than the present rate of increase. Now prove that your projection is more accurate than mine.

It is easier to refrain from buying certain goods to avoid paying taxes than it is to work for less than the market will pay you.

Not true. Refraining from purchases would have to be a daily activity. Taking a lower rate of pay could be done just once every 12 months.

I was referring to excise taxes used to generate federal revenue during the first nine years of the United States in the late eighteenth century. The CP is against all forms of protectionism including tariffs. In the case you mentioned above, tariffs were implemented for political reasons for the North to subdue the South. A national sales tax would be non-political and apply to all 50 states for the purpose of funding the federal government.

In addition to the excise tax, in the 1790s the federal government was already levying direct taxes on land, houses and slaves. The only way a tax can be non-political is by having it imposed by a body that is not subject to periodic re-election. Your decision to exempt food from the sales tax is but one example of the politically motivated exceptions that will be sought. The excise tax in the early American republic that you point to so admiringly was first applied to liquor distillers, for they were a socially and politically acceptable target for punitive taxation.

No it is not wasteful to improve the quality of our lives. Wealth destruction occurs under the current income tax system that provides incentives for a corporation to buy two corporate jets when only one is needed; the other one reduces tax liability but the money could have been used more productively in the absence of income taxes.

But what if a corporation really DID need two or even three or four jets? Your consumption tax would impose a penalty on each jet that the company bought. Thus your tax would punish ALL spending and not just wasteful spending.

Whoever holds productivity as a virtue can see the irrationality of our current production tax (since 1913).

The assertion in the CP manifesto about discouraging wealth destruction implicitly refers to not encouraging the dissipation of earned wealth on wasteful projects to reduce tax liabilities. Spending money on oneself for new clothes, a new car, a new home, fresh food, education, etc. is not considered wasteful or destructive by the CP.

Great. If new cars are going to be exempt from the national sales tax, why not exempt jet planes as well? Who gets to decide what products are exempt, and, given that those making the decisions will be selected by Congress or the president, what keeps the decision-making from being political?

The purpose of the consumption tax is to shift the tax burden away from production and toward consumption. If someone could come up with a viable method that would provide a reliable source of funding for military and legal protection, the CP would abolish all taxes -- both production and consumption taxes.

I have already shown that if I am penalized for making purchases, then those who would sell me products will be penalized too. Whatever we tax we get less of. Less consumer spending means less products sold, which in turn means less incentive for production. Thus, as Murry Rothbard has explained, the sales tax is just another form of tax on production.

The income tax system utilizes 20,000 pages of arbitrary rules and regulations (US Code 26), an army of armed bureaucrats (CID), juryless tax courts and time-draining paperwork that can be used against citizens in court (violating the 5th Amendment). This gives the federal government unlimited power to search the property and person of every American for any reason and confiscate tangible property, put a lien on homes, freeze bank accounts and bludgeon citizens.

With a federal sales tax system, citizens do not file tax returns. There are no 1040 forms, no tax code, no Criminal Investigation Division, no tax courts, no Internal Revenue Service, no government brownshirts and no political witch-hunts under the guise of taxes. Whatever you buy has a federal tax built into the price. April 15th becomes just another day.

With no enforcement arm, I can only assume that your national sales tax will be voluntary, and that those businesses which refuse to collect the tax will be treated no differently than those who follow the law.

The drawbacks of a federal sales tax are:

1) It reduces workers' purchasing power by raising prices of goods and services.

2) It requires businesses to collect and send this tax to the government.

With regard to 1), the consumption tax has the very same effect as the income tax: they both effectively reduce personal wealth. As for 2), how would government require businesses to collect the tax if there is no Criminal Investigation Division?

The drawbacks of a federal income tax are:

1) It reduces workers' purchasing power by extracting a portion of each worker's earnings.

No less true for the sales tax.

2) It requires business owners and workers to file complicated tax forms and send this tax to the government.

Providing proof of sales can also be burdensome to the business owner.

3) It siphons off earned money from businesses and individuals, thereby crippling the ability of corporations and citizens to accumulate wealth.

But if the government collects a sales tax on the jet plane I buy, it is also siphoning off “earned money.” Where do you think the down payment for the jet came from, the Tooth Fairy? Furthermore, the more I have to spend to get a jet, the less I have to save and thus accumulate wealth.

4) Businesses that transfer earnings to the government cannot invest that money into maintaining and upgrading capital equipment, which would make each employee more productive and thus increase each employee's wages.

Same is true for that portion of a business’s expenses that go to cover sales taxes.

5) The non-objective tax code enables politicians and bureaucrats to prosecute unpopular citizens like Leona Helmsley, Irwin Schiff and Reuben Sturman -- locking them up in prison even though they never committed an objective crime.

I suppose, then, that there will be no prison terms or fines for those who evade the national sales tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...