The government is supposed to protect rights, including property rights. Forcible taxation contradicts such an organization’s purpose.
When you approach a businessman for goods and services for your consumption, you negotiate a value for such services or goods that is supposed to be equal to the value of the goods- in other words, an exchange.
When you approach the government… in the form of authorization, or however you wish to call this, should you not be expected to pay a price for such?
And what if the government claims you did not contribute, voluntarily or otherwise, an amount that represents such value?
Now Gags, I did go to the thread on this subject you linked to. Unfortunately, I did not read nor discover any thread of compelling evidence nor logical argument as to how to properly and appropriately finance the government for its citizens’ authorization that government protect the rights of its citizens.
Let’s face it, this is a very complex issue to answer. I really, truly wish that I could furnish such an answer, short of dealing with the government in a similar manner that one deals with business.
So you would only tax the income of business owners? Would you also tax corporate profits? If so, I hope you realize that business don’t pay taxes. The people who pay business taxes are the customers – in the form of higher prices.
Business does so pay taxes. That statement is patently false.
Now Gags, I did go to the thread on this subject you linked to. Unfortunately, I did not read nor discover any thread of compelling evidence nor logical argument as to how to properly and appropriately finance the government for its citizens’ authorization that government protect the rights of its citizens.
I thought there were a number of very useful suggestions in that thread. Assessing a charge for contract enforcement would certainly raise a tremendous amount of money for the government. The other thing to remember is that with a rationally structured and limited government, we would not have a $2.6 trillion federal budget. A big part of the solution to this problem is restricting the government to its proper role, which doesn’t include about 90% of the crap in which government is currently involved.
Business does so pay taxes. That statement is patently false.
Uggg. When the government levies a tax on business, what happens? The business raises its prices to pass the tax on to its customers. It happens all of the time. Sometimes it’s a combination of price increases and cost reductions (which usually means firing employees). In any event, the business itself doesn’t pay the tax.
In any event, the business itself doesn’t pay the tax.
Gags, your assertion that the business itself doesn’t pay taxes is not only patently false, but, as an independent businessman, I take offense to such statement.
First off, the amount of such “tax” that I may pass on to my clients is going to be limited by what the market may bear regarding what I can charge. Also, any such increases in my costs would be passed on to my clients, but, even in that case, such increase in fees would be tempered by what I perceive whatever tha market might bear.
This is true of any business.
It is important that, in any discussion of taxation of business and its effects on the cost increase, that you show an understanding of the way the market works, which you have not.
In any case, business pays taxes. Lots and lots of taxes.
Yes: do you really think that when the government taxes oil companies, the amount of that tax isn’t reflected in the price that the consumer pays for gasoline? Taxes are like any other expense in that they ultimately have to be passed on to the end user of the product or service. In competitive markets you may not be able to pass the cost increase on immediately, but that is what eventually happens.
Yes: do you really think that when the government taxes oil companies, the amount of that tax isn’t reflected in the price that the consumer pays for gasoline? Taxes are like any other expense in that they ultimately have to be passed on to the end user of the product or service. In competitive markets you may not be able to pass the cost increase on immediately, but that is what eventually happens.
All of that is true, but that does not support your argument that businesses do not pay taxes, now, does it?
The point is that a non-businessman-citizen who thinks he won’t pay for it when he votes to increase the taxes on business is sorely mistaken. Sales tax, for example, is not a tax on businesses, but on those who shop at them.
I don’t think it’s being said that businessmen don’t suffer from taxes. Nobody here would think that.
“Ability”? Care to explain what that means? Total weath? Market value of the property being taxed? Income? what?
Ah, “From each, according to his ability, to each, according to their need.” Sounds like a quote from a well-known Socialist.
While I must admit that the taxation system is unfair to the poor unfortunate bastards who happen to fall into some relief from the grief of losing their family, I do wonder if perhaps we are falling into the trap of being called to service as “our brother’s keepers”. Where do you draw the line? Should we also be required to perform military service, since the government protects us from foreign threats? Just curious where you stand on this.
In the mixed system, even the right to own property is compromised by taxation of such property.
It was further compromised by the Supreme Court decision recently that validated the seizure of property in New London for the sake of Pfizer.
So if the government decrees that your right to your property is trumped by a higher public purpose, as determined by the highest court in the land, then they can seize your property.
In the mixed system, even the right to own property is compromised by taxation of such property.
(deleted for brevity)
Much is wrong with this picture!
No kidding! However, your comments about ability to pay, while closer to that ever-ellusive goal of a “Fair” tax system, still, as some readers here correctly responded, reeks of Marxism.
What would you consider a proper and moral way to finance government at the local level?
Meanwhile, my tax debt just increased 50% with the December installment. I’m losing ground and this issue depresses me.
No kidding! However, your comments about ability to pay, while closer to that ever-ellusive goal of a “Fair” tax system, still, as some readers here correctly responded, reeks of Marxism.
What would you consider a proper and moral way to finance government at the local level?
Meanwhile, my tax debt just increased 50% with the December installment. I’m losing ground and this issue depresses me.
Certainly, I’d be open to any logical suggestions as to how it is we pay government to protect our rights.
A definite step in the right direction would be to pare government down such that its sole purpose would be to protect our rights. I see nothing but positive consequenses arising from this- including a substantial amount of tax dollars the government will no longer be able to steal from us.
