hopeful
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hopeful
-
-
I'm guessing that noone visited the site. Very disappointing, although not entirely suprising since it isn't recommended at ARI.
NIJamesHughes,
Do you mean this as an insult, or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
-
... Objectivist Richard Salsman's campus talk "A New Tax Policy That Advances Capitalism," ...
Thanks for the reference. Will attempt to check on this over the weekend.
For now, I have a question of those who support a CT (jedymastyr, Johnrgt,...) , so that I better understand your position:
Suppose we end up with a CT, and a much, much smaller and less complicated Income tax which (say) impacts only less than 1% of current tax-payers, and which has a maximum rate of (say) 1%, would you say such a combination is a better place to be than where we are today?
If you answer "no" , as I expect you will, then I think I am clearer about your position.
If you answer "yes", then I have a further question: is there some way to increase the two percentages that I mentioned as examples to a point where you will answer "no, it is worse than before".
more later...
-
Since everything is something one tax scheme has to be better than another.
Better to whom? Not to the person who has to pay more tax.
Further, simply reducing the rates of the current scheme would do nothing to alleviate the disproportionate tax burden the current scheme places on the backs of the most able – an altruistic policy that ends-up hurting everyone, especially those it pretends to want to help.If taxes are more "fair" if the absolute amount per person is the same for all persons, then reducing the rate will make them more "fair". If taxes are more "fair" if the ratio-of-wealth per person is the same for all persons, then a CT is less "fair".
You make it sound as if your grandfather’s savings wouldn’t increase in value by the dramatic increases in both productivity and the size of the economy said to be inherent in a Consumption Tax.You will have to explain this in more detail and without economic arguments that are typical of economists -- i.e., arguments that are not induced from reality.
One of the main advantages of a CT, if implemented correctly and the road kept clear, is that the FedGov wouldn’t have other sources of income. Thus, all the hidden costs of government would be made obvious at every purchase. That can only be a good thing.What can be less hidden than an income tax where one has to sit down once a year and compute how many thousands one has given the government.
As for the idea that the government will not have any other source of income once a CT is implemented... do you seriously think this will happen? If the politcal will ever exists to make CT the only tax, then the politcial will will probably also exist to do away with taxes as such, and instead to discuss government financing in a free economy. In the meanwhile, CT will end up as just another tax.
I too was once seduced by the idea of a CT and the idea of a flat-tax and so on. Then, I realized that I'm being duped. For me, it is rate reduction or naught.
-
I think a new tax scheme only needs be better than the system it replaces to make implementing it logical.
Define "better".
The only scheme that is really better is one where everyone pays less with the new scheme than with the old one. So, rate-reduction is the only fair approach.
Further, isn’t the battle for the abolishment of taxes a separate debate, one that can be moved in the right direction by implementing a CT intelligently?All these debates about types of taxes are dry bones thrown to the masses to distract them from the real issue.
Tell my grand-father that now that he's finished paying taxes on his income, we're going to raise the taxes on his consumption. CT is simply someone else's social engineering: "let's make the masses consume less and save more... it's good for them... we have to induce them to be rational...we're rational...we know best..."
Enough to make the best socialist proud.
-
The US doesn't have the manpower available to invade Iran at this point, and will not in the forseeable future without a draft.
It would be more correct to say that "The US doesn't have the manpower available to invade Iran" ... [and convert it to a free nation that respects individual rights]... "at this point, and will not in the forseeable future without a draft."
On the other hand, the US probably has the manpower to destroy Irans nuclear facilities.
-
The distinction is a joke.
Perhaps the legal definition is so. However, "non profit organization" is a concept that predates the US tax code. People have often come together to form organizations for reasons other than making a financial profit. Many clubs, libraries and fire services were organized this way. In old British accounting parlance, such organizations may run a "surplus" or a "deficit", but not a "profit" or "loss". I think the financial distinction is relevant to an accountant.
Yes, "profit" can be used in a broader sense, to encompass non-financial gain, as in the famous quote: "What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?"
However, when used in the financial sense, ARI isa non-profit organization. It was not created with the purpose of making a financial profit. Similarly, regardless of the amount of money the "Missionaries of Charity" may have in the bank, they too are a non-profit organization. They seek non-financial gain.
The term non-profit does not scare me like the term "for profit" might scare a socialist.
-
I do not see a close similarity.
From what I saw of the video, the can of Coke didn't hit the player who reacted. It seemed to hit the coach he was talking to. This angered the player. He jumped into the crowd and boxed the wrong person. A general ruckus ensued.
-
The idea of a "for profit" organization to pursue an agenda like that of ARI is quite interesting.
-
I would definitely agree that some of these other solutions are more sound than the Liberty Dollar.
I still want to stick it to the Fed though...to the mints I shall go...
I see a larger moral to this: someone making the right philosophical statements is not necessarily philosophically sound. Some will say the right things but not act on it. Others may say a few of the wrong things, but act morally. And there will always be a few who will say anything to make a quick buck.
-
Bring back debtor prisons for bankrupts.
I would not toss away the idea of debtor prison so easily. That is not to
say that I support the idea. All I am saying is that you can only argue for
it or against it if you validate it against an underlying principle. Back to
the question about the nature of criminal law.
The case *for* debtor's prison is simple. People often borrow irresponsibly.
They take something with a promise to and then renege. Suppose the court
determines that they did not renege because of a defect in the goods, or a
misunderstanding, but simply because they could not pay. Suppose the court
further determines that a reasonable person could not have had an
expectation that they would be able to pay. That bringsd them very close to
a thief who has taken something without paying. Surelt, it makes them nearly
identical to a fraudster who never had any intention to pay, evcen though he
had the ability to do so.
The case *against* debtor's prison is that peoiple usually fall into debt
because of bad circumstances and without intending to do so -- unlike the
intentions of a theif or a fraudster. So, while they have done something
wrong, and can be sued for their debt, this should be in the province of
civil law rather than criminal law.
I wonder if "intent to harm" ought to be an important part of what makes
something criminal.
-
...A crime is a conscious violation of the rights of another individual, committed out of malice or criminal negligence.
Its easy to imagine civil cases where the two parties disagree about the interpretation of a contract. In my personal experience, I have knowledge of the facts of three civil cases. In each case there is little doubt that one party clearly intended to cheat the other, and did so not because of a misunderstanding but because they thought they could get away with it. Finally, the cases were resolved, but only with civil restitution.
-
Law is usually divided into "civil" and "criminal" branches. The basis of civil suits is clear: one person thinks that another person has done them harm and they go before an independent authjority to resolve it and tom seek compensation.
The basis of criminal prosecution is less clear. What aspect of a case makes it warrant criminal prosecution? What is the distinguishing set of facts? Bodily injury? Physical injury?
A preliminary search on the web shows that the typical justification for criminal prosecution is based on some concept of "greater common good" or "public interest". That is, a violation of rights is prosecuted criminally in situations where there is a public interest in doing so. It is really tough to draw this line.
I'm curious if anyone here, particularly any lawyers have thought about this: what is the *correct* basis of criminal law?
Thomas Jefferson
in History
Posted
Thanks for the info. This was when Jefferson was president.
It is clear from this thread that regardless of any doubts that Jefferson might have about whether negros had capacities equal to white men, this did not prevent him from seeing that they deserved equality under law.
To this end, he did more than just the bare minimum that was politically acceptable. Instead, he "pushed the envelope" considerably.