At what point do taxes become tyrrany?

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

25% to pay for what the federal government does is a pretty sweet deal and hardly tyrannical. The largest Military on the planet, infrastructure, Space exploration, National Parks, Disaster relief, Healthcare for the elderly, Social Security, and so much else. Granted as you said you are not paying 25% but if you seriously think that living in a modern society with all those programs and earned benefits isn't worth a significant portion of your labor then you have an odd definition of tyranny. There is always a debate about how much is too much but the framing of your argument is a bit silly.

 

My biggest issue with an ideology of libertarians is two-fold. 1- Libertarians place the same blind faith in free markets that socialists and communists place in the government. 2- Libertarians ignore the fact that most rules, regulations, and programs exist in response to the failings of the free market. 

 

Are there examples of government overreach and regulatory capture? Yes, that's why socialists and communists are stupid to think that the answer is always more government. But on the other end, the reason things like Environmental regulations exist is because the free market and private enterprise didn't give a !@#$ about pollution. Every time we roll back environmental regulations we eventually hear that the companies lower their standards and bad things happen. If the free market was the answer to the Environment then there wouldn't be instances of lower regulations leading to bigger problems. 

 

Mom paying more than 25%. To me, I believe 25% is the cap anybody should be taxed ever. 

 

Also, while I have libertarian leanings I am not one because I disagree with a truly free market. I do believe in some oversight. We have to. Crisises have risen from lack of oversight. 

 

I like the libertarians, but I’m not one. 

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

So your problem is economic inequality, which probably means your ideology is Socialism.

 

The deterioration isn't caused by Capitalism, but by people who's ideology opposes the fair distribution that the free market imposes. The same revolution occurs under socialism when the earners fight against the confiscation of their wages for redistribution.

 

Free people aren't equal. Equal people aren't free.

 

You do realize there is a middle ground between socialism and unfettered capitalism right? Do you honestly think someone saying hey maybe unfettered capitalism has some unintended consequences automatically means they are a socialist? That's an insane jump to conclusions.

 

Capitalism is the most powerful force we have on this planet to generate wealth but left unchecked it ends up in a pyramid scheme were so few see that benefit. Capitalism is the powerful flow of a powerful river and the government are the dams and levees that keep the river from overflowing and flooding. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, baskin said:

The tears of the oppressed...your are not "sacrificing" anything - last time I checked you "using" the roads, the schools, the police, the military, your food is safe, at some point you will receive Medicare and social security...

 

Thanks for you "sacrifice"....

 

I'm guessing you take every exemption you can find, and then some.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

How so? Unfettered capitalism encourages strong concentrations of wealth to a small number of people Employers broke unions through force, forced children into the labor market, abused employees all to the end of saving money. The Book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is the result of unfettered capitalism. 

 

Unfettered capitalism encourages capital formation, which seed the ground for economic growth and raises everyone's standard of living.  In America our poor have an obesity epidemic and lifestyles saturated in luxury items.

 

The other conditions you describe are the realities of technological innovations of the day.  Capitalism didn't "force children into labor markets" it pulled them out of the fields and provided them a wage, which removed their families out of the destitute poverty of subsistence farming.  A secondary point I'll build onto the back of the first, is that child labor laws came to pass after the overwhelming majority of child labor had been naturally ended by capitalism, as increased productivity and innovation drove production and earnings, allowing adults to do 100% of the earning to support their families.  The respectively few children labor laws removed from working did so at their peril, as it made it impossible to their parents to afford them, and drove an orphanage boom.

 

To the third point:  breaking of labor unions by force is not a capitalistic principle.  Capitalism is rooted in freedom of association.  It does not mean all things are permissible.

Edited June 8, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[unbillievable]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

How so? Unfettered capitalism encourages strong concentrations of wealth to a small number of people Employers broke unions through force, forced children into the labor market, abused employees all to the end of saving money. The Book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is the result of unfettered capitalism. 

 

It has been discovered that wealth and labor is concentrated into a small number of people no matter what economic model a group practices. It even goes beyond economics and is a basic truth about human group dynamics.

 

This "law" states that everything, whether it be money, work, etc, 50% is created primarily by the square root of the total people involved. The rest are left with the scraps.

For example:

• If there are 10 people in a study group, 1 person will do 50% of the homework.
• if there are 100 salesmen; half the products will be sold by 10 people.
• If 10,000 restaurants are started, 100 of those will reap 50% of the revenue for the entire city.

 

Of course, there are probably exceptions... but the rule generally works whenever any group of people get together. There are the movers, and the rest of us are followers (and have to live off the leftover dregs)

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said:

Here's a better question:  what are you doing to serve your country with the .$75 per dollar that you aren't forced to pay?

 

That's a terrible question, and I reject it's underlying assumptions, as it assumes a totally backwards relationship between citizen and government. 

[unbillievable]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

You do realize there is a middle ground between socialism and unfettered capitalism right? Do you honestly think someone saying hey maybe unfettered capitalism has some unintended consequences automatically means they are a socialist? That's an insane jump to conclusions.

 

Capitalism is the most powerful force we have on this planet to generate wealth but left unchecked it ends up in a pyramid scheme were so few see that benefit. Capitalism is the powerful flow of a powerful river and the government are the dams and levees that keep the river from overflowing and flooding. 

 

Like I said, people don't like Capitalism because they want to shape society in their own image.

WE use the government to shape the market, and our community... as we should; we aren't barbarians. We're civilized folk with empathy (at least according to the empathy test)

[Tiberius]

Of course there is a middle ground. Regulated capitalism with some socialism seems to be the best formula. Where would the banking system be without FDIC? Back in the no fail safe zone. 

[unbillievable]

1 minute ago, E. Side Bulldog said:

 

It's a good question, because it challenges your assumption that the individual is more important than society as a whole.

 

 

You would support Thanos over Captain America?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, E. Side Bulldog said:

 

It's a good question, because it challenges your assumption that the individual is more important than society as a whole.

 

The individual is more important than society.  We are not bees.  Each individual is unique, with their own thoughts and desires, and respond best to those thoughts and desires as the amount of freedom they have increases.

[The_Dude]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Of course there is a middle ground. Regulated capitalism with some socialism seems to be the best formula. Where would the banking system be without FDIC? Back in the no fail safe zone. 

 

This is true. To an extent. But I’ll tell anybody who will listen this, the small business owner such as myself is paying an unfair burden. Lost in the clash of plebs and patricians was the economic woes of the equites. I’m an equite, and it’s painful. 

[unbillievable]

Just now, The_Dude said:

 

This is true. To an extent. But I’ll tell anybody who will listen this, the small business owner such as myself is paying an unfair burden. Lost in the clash of plebs and patricians was the economic woes of the equites. I’m an equite, and it’s painful. 

 

You didn't build that. Someone else made it happen. So pay your fair share.

[The_Dude]

5 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

You didn't build that. Someone else made it happen. So pay your fair share.

 

I can’t tell if you’re joking.  But I hope you are. 

[The_Dude]

I must tell the Constantine tax story somewhere in this thread. This is just a reminder to myself to do so. Smart guy, Constantine. 

[unbillievable]

Just now, The_Dude said:

 

I can’t tell if you’re joking.  But I hope you are. 

 

The fact you can't tell the difference, is interesting.

 

When someone says something that crazy, you'd expect it to be a joke, but there are people who believe it. One of them was the President. Another one lost to Hilary. Yet another is thinking of running in 2020.

 

 

 Maybe I will be more supportive of Socialism if the work was divided equally, and not just the wealth.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

32 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said:

If you're looking at it from your own individual perspective, perhaps you're right.  But as soon as you cross paths with another individual, there is bound to be conflict and competing interests.  Isn't that the reason for a society, and civilization in general, to ensure the greatest common good amongst individuals?  

 

Of course you can maintain a strict individualistic perspective, but I'd be wary of a group of individuals teaming up and overpowering you through numbers and shared resources.

 

Which is why the strongest societies are constructed on the foundational principals of natural rights, protecting the individual against such occurrences.

[billsfan89]

55 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

Like I said, people don't like Capitalism because they want to shape society in their own image.

WE use the government to shape the market, and our community... as we should; we aren't barbarians. We're civilized folk with empathy (at least according to the empathy test)

 

People love capitalism, the countries staunch Bernie Sanders voters prop up as great examples of socialism are capitalist nations. People don't like unfettered capitalism because it results in massive inequality that once it reaches a certain threshold isn't sustainable. 

 

The government's role is to shape the conditions to which a free market with property rights, private ownership, and individual rights against the government exist. I think 80% of people believe in some shape a government should take in balancing those conditions so that the markets do not run away to the point where massive inequality becomes an issue.

 

The debate exists as to what degree and to what extent those conditions should be set. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

People love capitalism, the countries staunch Bernie Sanders voters prop up as great examples of socialism are capitalist nations. People don't like unfettered capitalism because it results in massive inequality that once it reaches a certain threshold isn't sustainable. 

 

Please make a list of countries in which unfettered capitalism has made the country unsustainable.

 

The government's role is to shape the conditions to which a free market with property rights, private ownership, and individual rights against the government exist. I think 80% of people believe in some shape a government should take in balancing those conditions so that the markets do not run away to the point where massive inequality becomes an issue.

 

Property rights, private ownership, and individual rights are hallmarks of capitalism, not limitations of it.

 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

 

This is true. To an extent. But I’ll tell anybody who will listen this, the small business owner such as myself is paying an unfair burden. Lost in the clash of plebs and patricians was the economic woes of the equites. I’m an equite, and it’s painful. 

So what's your solution then? The biggest parts of the budget are military and health care for the elderly. 

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Please make a list of countries in which unfettered capitalism has made the country unsustainable.

 

 

 

 

Property rights, private ownership, and individual rights are hallmarks of capitalism, not limitations of it.

 

 

 

The USA and England's versions of unfettered capitalism weren't sustainable, the massive amounts of inequality and relative poverty resulted in the welfare state and regulations. Many modern capitalism practicing nations don't do the unfettered version of capitalism because the massive levels of inequality were not sustainable. 

 

"Property rights, private ownership, and individual rights are hallmarks of capitalism, not limitations of it."

Completely agree I do not know how you could infer that I was characterizing those things as limitations. I was not implying that at all, I am a big fan of capitalism just not without some degree of oversight by the government.