 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Mock debate for home school |
 |  |  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
MorbidMolly Octoballoon Level: 21  Posts: 141/171 EXP: 46523 For next: 3420 Since: 08-26-04 From: my house, a state, USA Since last post: 70 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
We are having a mock debate in this home school group and I'm to be the secratary of jobs and taxes. My arguement is for graduated taxes.(negative, finding the defects in our opposing team's flat taxation) And I need help. If you could just tell me your veiws on both graduated and flat tax, I'd be most grateful.  (edited by MorbidMolly on 10-31-04 10:06 AM) |
|||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 427/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Okay. The flat tax is simply a bad idea. It's usually based in principles of "fairness", yet the standards of fairness behind it are completely arbitrary. I wrote a decent article about it a while back. Basically, the idea is that taxing people at a flat rate of their consumption or income isn't fair, because that's an arbitrary standard. There are only two standards of fairness which I could imagine being useful. 1. Libertarian Fairness Basically, tax people according to how much they benefit from government services like police and military protection. The problem with this kind of taxation, though, is that it would tend to be heavily regressive, since poor people, on average, benefit from social services and police protection more than the rich. People would pay more as their assets increase, though, because they're basically getting "insurance" on more valuable packages of goods. So a wealth vs. tax burden curve would be heavily regressive up until about middle class income, and then level out like a flat tax, roughly. However, this system would be completely ridiculous for poor people. At best, the tax burden could be altered to take into account the fact that poor people wouldn't be able to pay the tax, and they would subsequently be imprisoned by the thousands, yielding a higher taxpayer burden.  2. Utilitarian Fairness; Basically, this would require taking a flat percent of a person's utility via their income... and since there's a diminishing marginal returns on every dollar a person has, this kind of tax would be heavily progressive. Taking 10% of a poor person's income hurts him a lot more than taking 10% of a rich person's income would, for example, so perhaps it would be more "fair" to only charage the poor person 5% and the rich person 20% to achieve equal utility loss. |
|||
|
MorbidMolly Octoballoon Level: 21 Posts: 142/171 EXP: 46523 For next: 3420 Since: 08-26-04 From: my house, a state, USA Since last post: 70 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
Thank you that helps alot. And I suppose it'd be more like a mock election. ... |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 1581/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Progressive income taxation. That's the way to go. Why should the poor have the most taken away from them and the rich be given an unneeded breath of fresh air? The upper echelon's of society have obviously benefited most from it, thus they should give the most back. Common sense. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 428/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziffski Only if you believe that people have no right to their income. |
|||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2326/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| I'm not sure if I read the same quote that you read, but it is the same quote you quoted. It seems he does believe people have the right to their income, but just not ridiculous surpluses. The way we are now, the richer you are, the easier it is to double the amount of money you already have. He says it shouldn't be that way, because if you are rich off your ass already, whether you earned your way to that point or not, you don't need twice as much money. It is logical that if you have 900,000 dollars, then you should be giving more money back than someone with 20,000 dollars, or someone with 800,000. How much more they give back seems to be the issue. However, I saw nothing in his post indicating what you said it did. Btw, what you said on fixed rates is not the libertarian ideal... if you REALLY wanted to go libertarian, then the libertarian ideal would be much closer to what you said already... there would be no government-funded services, meaning no taxes. The government would basically be a private organization/corporation, and if you wanted into their services, you would need to buy them. That way, you only pay for what you use. That's the libertarian ideal regarding that. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 430/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Kefka Yes.. in other words, you don't have a right to the money you make. That's what you're both saying. If you made your money through your own means, you earned it, period. It doesn't matter if it was done "easily" through stocks or whatever, it's your damn money. Go ahead and say you don't have a right to that money if you will, but don't pretend that you have a right to it and it can be justifiably stolen from you at the same time. If I have a car and someone is allowed to take it from me, no one would say that I enjoyed a right to that car (or, at least, no one would say that the government recognizes a right to that car.) Originally posted by Kefka That's anarchy, not libertarianism. You can blur the lines, but no political philosophy which says that all services should be privatized qualifies as "libertarian". Military protection, police protection, and the courts are all essential features of a libertarian government which must be sustained through taxation... is this taxation coercive and illegitimate? Perhaps, but the most "pure" thing to do under this circumstance would be to charge people the amount that they'd normally pay on the market for these services. |
|||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2327/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| About your whole "no right to money" thing: It doesn't matter what tax system you use, as long as you have taxes. People will have some of their income go to the government's purposes. Whether the gov uses it properly (which they seem to have trouble doing) is a different issue (and yes, that issue can justifiably be brought up at this point, but that is not necessary). If you really want to have the right to all the money you make, then you don't have taxes. But that isn't possible in our society, so you don't have the right to some of your money (this is using your terms). What Ziff was saying was that the method he mentioned (though he didn't really go in depth at all on it after giving it a name, which is never good when you are talking about such issues, or any issue for that matter) is his ideal for making the tax as fair as possible (though it obviously won't be "fair"). Granted, there are probably better ways to tax than what he said, but there isn't too drastic of a difference between his preference and the Utilitarian method that you mentioned... what I interpreted from "progressive income taxation" (just based on the words, and not knowing too many of the details on it) was that (these numbers are just figurative examples, and not set rates for what would be done in this system) if you make 5 bucks, you are taxed 1%... if 10 bucks, then like, 4%... if 100, then like, 10%... basically, as your income increases, your percentage of taxation increases. I may have interpreted it wrongly, but I found this to be the same as the Ulitarian Fairness that you appeared to have supported in your previous post. "2. Utilitarian Fairness; Basically, this would require taking a flat percent of a person's utility via their income... and since there's a diminishing marginal returns on every dollar a person has, this kind of tax would be heavily progressive. Taking 10% of a poor person's income hurts him a lot more than taking 10% of a rich person's income would, for example, so perhaps it would be more "fair" to only charage the poor person 5% and the rich person 20% to achieve equal utility loss." Now, I agree with this more than I agree with Ziff's unexplained method of taxation, but what I am puzzled about is that you seemed to imply here that this is what you supported, and yet you are trying to go against it now... Or maybe I'm just not thinking clearly. I'm hungry. In your Utilitarian example (or definition, whatever), you seemed to indicate that the richer you are, the more money you should owe back to society. In Ziff's short briefing, he said the same thing word-for-word (well, almost). So: 1) I don't see what the big disagreement is about 2) It still would seem that any tax system has a portion of someone's income not "within their rights" 3) I don't see how what he said is any different as far as how much is not within someone's rights as the latter of the two solutions (though you showed disagreement with the first one) you gave. And about the libertarian debacle, sorry, perhaps I did blur it a bit too much, but I was just going with what I said based on something that someone I know who is a registered Libertarian who I talked with said. The Libertarian party is infamous for their desire of not wanting taxes, and that was the only solution I've ever heard people from that party give me when I ask them how we will pay for shit. So sorry about the confusion, most of which likely stemmed from my side. |
|||
|
MorbidMolly Octoballoon Level: 21 Posts: 143/171 EXP: 46523 For next: 3420 Since: 08-26-04 From: my house, a state, USA Since last post: 70 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
 Okay that was a little cunfusing...But I got most of it.Would you mind explaing the politic terms to me such as libertarian, and Utilitarian?  |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 1583/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| No, anarchy is the total break down of society into free standing individuals, without any governmental or corporate services. Libertarianism is the concept of the removal of government and complete privatization of society. The highest point of the capitalist system. I'm going to name what I believe in, but when I have to run out of the house and not get back until slightly later, I can't really elaborate my stance. Progressive taxation is exactly like that Utilitarian idea. Sadly, there is another form of taxes that Green parties favour because it is "environmentally friendly" you're taxed less the more spending power you have, it is a very right wing idea. Basically, if you purchase more heating gas, more firewood, more food and more gravel when you are making your house, dinner, during the winter, etc. the total cost of your taxes goes down as you put more into the economy, but if you can not put enough money into the economy, then you fuel the government. Frankly, I think it is a bad idea, but hey, there is always complete equalization or seperation of society. Utilitarian: 1. Of, relating to, or in the interests of utility: utilitarian considerations in industrial design. 2. Exhibiting or stressing utility over other values; practical: plain, utilitarian kitchenware. 3. Of, characterized by, or advocating utilitarianism. Libertarian: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will. (edited by Ziffski on 10-31-04 10:47 PM) |
|||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2328/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| Well, looks like we agree now (until hahahalalala comes in and says otherwise) that 1) Libertarian ideas would follow the same logic I said in regards to the taxes 2) We all agree on the utilitarian idea as a whole 3) That dancing Hitler never gets old |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 431/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Kefka Well, libertarians see taxation for certain purposes as a "necessary evil"... however, just because evil is to some extent necessary does not give a government a blanket mandate to deny all citizens any rights at any time. The distinction between "necessary" and "unnecessary" government programs is somewhat debatable, but it's not completely arbitrary. Things like Social Secuirty and Welfare are clearly unnecessary programs, unless it's the case that there removal would destroy the country (which it wouldn't.) Originally posted by Kefka I provided two rationales for taxes that could arguably be considered "fair"... however, just because a tax is fair doesn't mean it's desirable. The government redistribute all income and call it "fair", but it would certainly be an undesirable thing. So while the argument for utlity-based taxation can be made, I find the notion to be undesirable, because leeching off the rich tends to be towards society's long-run disadvantage, in addition to being a massive rights violation.. Originally posted by Ziffski Incorrect. Anarchy as a political system is characterized by a society without an institution with a monopoly of force. This says nothing for other institutions or "corporate services". Even if you could argue that libertarianism is what most people consider anarchy, then it would be argued that self-proclaimed libertarians do not adhere to that definition of the term, and hence it's silly to press on it. Originally posted by Ziffski The obvious problem here would be that individuals would shift parts of their income from investment to consumption in order to have lower taxes, hence necessitating higher tax rates generally.. also, providing disincentives on investment is a sure-fire way to slow economic growth. The same critique could be applied to utility-based taxation.. it provides an incentive for one to arrange his assets such that any taxation of those assets would lead to a huge utility loss. Imagine the rich man who puts all of his money into bonds, and then argues that having to cash the bonds to pay his taxes constitutes a major utility loss. One solution would be to "generalize" utility-based taxation to be only a function of a person's total income or assets, but there's generally a way around even these things, in addition to the fact that you would have a pretty inprecise system.. |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 199/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Flat taxation is not "fair". Simply applying the same numerical percentage to everyone does not mean you have equal impact on everyone. This is because every dollar of income is NOT equal. The first dollar of income is more important and vital than the 100 000th dollar (this principle is called the "principle of diminishing marginal utility" - so the two aren't equal, and flat taxation is not "fair" or equal just because you're taking the same percentage. The key is the idea of equal and fair IMPACT, which is a different matter to merely measuring what percentage is taken. Different people and situations are, after all, different. |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Mock debate for home school |
| | |
