Flat tax support, arguments for or against it?

[Endus]

Wait what? You lefties think the government should use force. As a libertarian, I think the government should do nothing other than just keeping the peace and making sure people wont get murderous or whatnot.

All you're really saying is that the government should allow those private citizens to use "force" to secure their own success at everyone else's expense, and then applauding them for doing so.

And I'm putting "force" in quotations, because it's an admittedly ridiculous use of the term, but it's no different than your use of it in describing taxation.

Society exists because cooperation is a stronger tool than individualism. If it weren't, governments would never have come to be. That cooperation builds more effective, more prosperous, more functional systems for everyone.


And for someone complaining about "freeloaders", you have no business complaining about paying your taxes. Trying to avoid paying your taxes makes you more of a "freeloader" than that person who sits on welfare for 30 years without really trying to work. Because at least the guy on welfare is working within the system, rather than trying to break the rules illicitly.

[Deleted]

You still don't seem to understand that you are using circular logic. Why is it your property? How did you establish that? And why should I respect that claim?

It is mine because I produce enough value to trade for it. Since I traded other type of value for that property it also came with a guarantee that not only would the other party try to keep it safe but would also not hold it against me if I used lethal force to defend it myself.

And you should respect it cause the power level of the US government is pretty much over 9000.. while yours is well.. unsatisfactory.

[Deleted]

Against flat tax.
Let's use an example. Let's say there is one tax that is 10% for all.

Now, someone's salary is 100 euros. They will pay 10 euros and be left with 90.
Another person's salary is 10.000 euros. They will pay 1.000 euros and be left with 9.000.

In theory, this might be ok until you think that by having the person get 9000 euros still, you increase the difference between the poor and the wealthy. And this is bad, for, in the end, there are more poor then there are wealthy and they can drag your country down.
Prices generally increase due to inflation, thus the more money the rich have, the inflation will grow. In the meantime, the poor people will not be able to save shit, so for them the increase in prices will hit harder. In time they will go under the poverty line.

At this point there are 2 choices for the country/state:
1. Leave them to remain below the poverty line. In this case crime rate increases for these people will join gangs and commit thefts to ensure themselves an ok life through easier means. It will also lead to civil unrest, as people start protesting and not all are pacifists. It also leads to dumbing down of population, for parents can't afford to watch if their children go to school and can't pay to ensure proper education for them so the next generation is dumber. The services provided by those that still work will decrease in quality as they either don't give a shit about the job due to shit salary or work 2 jobs or more and are horribly tired due to it.


2. Ensure they stay above the poverty line so that those things at 1 don't happen. In this case... the country/state loses for they have to pay more and more to give parents money for taking their children to school, give free food, give free shelter at one point. After a certain period this becomes unsustainable as the country does not have the money due to not collecting enough taxes so they either give up or create more taxes.

Overall a flat tax is a bad idea as it increases the wealth gap between the poor and rich too much over the years and leads to problems bigger than having a progressive tax.

[NineSpine]

It is mine because I produce enough value to trade for it. Since I traded other type of value for that property it also came with a guarantee that not only would the other party try to keep it safe but would also not hold it against me if I used lethal force to defend it myself.

And you should respect it cause the power level of the US government is pretty much over 9000.. while yours is well.. unsatisfactory.

Trade for it? How did you establish the person who owned it before had a valid claim to it? What if I sell someone your property because I believe it is mine? Will you move out and give it to them because they exchanged value for it?

I thought you said that you don't use the government to establish property and use force, and now you are telling me that the reason it is your property is because of government force. Which is it?

[Endus]

It is mine because I produce enough value to trade for it. Since I traded other type of value for that property it also came with a guarantee that not only would the other party try to keep it safe but would also not hold it against me if I used lethal force to defend it myself.

That's not an argument, that's circular reasoning.

If I walk into your house and take that stuff, how is it not mine now? Sure, you might use lethal force to defend it, but what if I shoot you first?

Sure, that's illegal, but it's only illegal because of the protection of the government whose existence you're complaining about.

And you should respect it cause the power level of the US government is pretty much over 9000.. while yours is well.. unsatisfactory.

We're talking about your fantasy world where that government has no effective power, and thus can't protect you.

The is the problem with pseudo-anarchists; they almost always fall back on relying on the government when push comes to shove.

[NineSpine]

That's not an argument, that's circular reasoning.

If I walk into your house and take that stuff, how is it not mine now? Sure, you might use lethal force to defend it, but what if I shoot you first?

Sure, that's illegal, but it's only illegal because of the protection of the government whose existence you're complaining about.



We're talking about your fantasy world where that government has no effective power, and thus can't protect you.

The is the problem with pseudo-anarchists; they almost always fall back on relying on the government when push comes to shove.

He doesn't even realize how much he is assuming in all of these arguments.

[Deleted]

Trade for it? How did you establish the person who owned it before had a valid claim to it? What if I sell someone your property because I believe it is mine? Will you move out and give it to them because they exchanged value for it?

I thought you said that you don't use the government to establish property and use force, and now you are telling me that the reason it is your property is because of government force. Which is it?

Yes you could.. if you could invade America.. again, this is why we need the army. And Im perfectly ok with paying taxes to support those guys.

As for force, I guess its a finders keepers thing. You can claim anything thats unowned but you cant claim already owned property. Unfortunately most if not all of Earths surface has already been claimed so you either have to trade for it or look upwards.

[NineSpine]

Yes you could.. if you could invade America.. again, this is why we need the army. And Im perfectly ok with paying taxes to support those guys.

As for force, I guess its a finders keepers thing. You can claim anything thats unowned but you cant claim already owned property. Unfortunately most if not all of Earths surface has already been claimed so you either have to trade for it or look upwards.

Can't claim already owned property? I hate to break it to you, but there is not a piece of land on this Earth that was not taken through military action at some point.

What gives someone the right to come across a piece of land and say "This is mine now" and then use force to keep me off of it? How did you establish a piece of land is unowned? What if I declare your property to be mine because I don't recognize the validity of the system you used to declare it your property?

For example, let's say a corrupt dictatorship is overthrown, and they had given you the land. I say that you have no right to it, because it was taken by force and given to you. Can I now use force to take it back from you?

[Deleted]

That's not an argument, that's circular reasoning.

If I walk into your house and take that stuff, how is it not mine now? Sure, you might use lethal force to defend it, but what if I shoot you first?

Sure, that's illegal, but it's only illegal because of the protection of the government whose existence you're complaining about.



We're talking about your fantasy world where that government has no effective power, and thus can't protect you.

The is the problem with pseudo-anarchists; they almost always fall back on relying on the government when push comes to shove.

But why are you arguing?

Fine, lets try another approach, maybe you understand this one.

Lets assume no one exists or at the very least, every living person doesnt want to do anything other than lay under a palm tree and eat free food. Who would give you commie types what you think you deserve then? There would be no jobs, no money, no food.. nothing. Just a bunch of whiny poor people.

Now one person thinks enough is enough.. but hes crazy selfish and doesnt give a crap about others. He puts in some manual labor and starts growing bananas. Now hes eating better than the rest. Tell me why would other people deserve even a single bite of hes delicious bananas?

[NineSpine]

But why are you arguing?

Fine, lets try another approach, maybe you understand this one.

Lets assume no one exists or at the very least, every living person doesnt want to do anything other than lay under a palm tree and eat free food. Who would give you commie types what you think you deserve then? There would be no jobs, no money, no food.. nothing. Just a bunch of whiny poor people.

Now one person thinks enough is enough.. but hes crazy selfish and doesnt give a crap about others. He puts in some manual labor and starts growing bananas. Now hes eating better than the rest. Tell me why would other people deserve even a single bite of hes delicious bananas?

Easy. I declared the island mine already, so anything he grows on it can't be his property, so now I get to kill him and take his bananas.

[Deleted]

Can't claim already owned property? I hate to break it to you, but there is not a piece of land on this Earth that was not taken through military action at some point.

What gives someone the right to come across a piece of land and say "This is mine now" and then use force to keep me off of it? How did you establish a piece of land is unowned? What if I declare your property to be mine because I don't recognize the validity of the system you used to declare it your property?

For example, let's say a corrupt dictatorship is overthrown, and they had given you the land. I say that you have no right to it, because it was taken by force and given to you. Can I now use force to take it back from you?

Again what are you trying to say? Bad shit happened in history.. so now its ok? But to answer your question, ideally no piece of land should even have been taken by force. All we can do now is to make sure it never happens again.

- - - Updated - - -

Easy. I declared the island mine already, so anything he grows on it can't be his property, so now I get to kill him and take his bananas.

Well yea.. if he does that on your land. Obviously that guy would not be a total idiot and would do it on hes own land.

[Endus]

He doesn't even realize how much he is assuming in all of these arguments.

I mean, not all anarchists are irrational. There's "rational anarchism", which isn't really a political movement but a concept out of Heinlein's fiction, but the foundational concept is that the anarchist is responsible unto himself. Which isn't the same as saying he's responsible only for himself; that responsibility carries over into a responsibility for the welfare and protection of others and the maintenance of a functional society. A society of rational anarchists would have a shared code of ethics which they all cooperate to implement; it's essentially that utopic form of Marxist communism.

The problem (as Heinlein was excrutiatingly clear about) is that it doesn't WORK as long as there are non-anarchists around who outnumber you. And it very much favors the use of collective force. It's by no means a perfect system, it's presented as an extremist what-if.

But that's not what these pseudo-anarchists are talking about, even.

Yes you could.. if you could invade America.. again, this is why we need the army. And Im perfectly ok with paying taxes to support those guys.

Just not for paying taxes to support people who can't afford to feed themselves.

As for force, I guess its a finders keepers thing. You can claim anything thats unowned but you cant claim already owned property. Unfortunately most if not all of Earths surface has already been claimed so you either have to trade for it or look upwards.

You're making so many assumptions, here. Why can't I claim your property? You're falling back on relying on the protections of a government you're proposing be dismantled.

That's not anarchism. That's just raw selfishness.

[NineSpine]

Again what are you trying to say? Bad shit happened in history.. so now its ok? But to answer your question, ideally no piece of land should even have been taken by force. All we can do now is to make sure it never happens again.

And how do you make sure it never happens again? You establish a government that protects those property rights and enforces your preferred economic system. You use force to make sure it can't happen. You use the government, and then you claim you don't use the government and don't use force.

Also, isn't this all just so fucking convenient? You just decide that the rich deserve everything they have because the force used to acquire their wealth was in the past.

- - - Updated - - -

Well yea.. if he does that on your land. Obviously that guy would not be a total idiot and would do it on hes own land.

He doesn't have any land. I declared the whole island mine, because it was unowned.

[Deleted]

Just not for paying taxes to support people who can't afford to feed themselves.

Again what part of trade you dont understand? Military gives me safety from invasions in exchange, cops protect me from criminals.. feeding the poor gives me nothing so its a bad investment.

[NineSpine]

Again what part of trade you dont understand? Military gives me safety from invasions in exchange, cops protect me from criminals.. feeding the poor gives me nothing so its a bad investment.

Taxes aren't trade. They are force. Why should I pay taxes to enforce an economic system that benefits YOU at my expense? Why does the government have the right to impose that economic system on me, against my will?

[Deleted]

You're making so many assumptions, here. Why can't I claim your property? You're falling back on relying on the protections of a government you're proposing be dismantled.

That's not anarchism. That's just raw selfishness.

Well you cant because you dont have the power to do that. Its as simple as that. US government > you

[NineSpine]

Well you cant because you dont have the power to do that. Its as simple as that. US government > you

So then you admit that all your talk about the government not enforcing the economic system is bullshit, and you endorse the government using force to establish your preferred economic system?

[Endus]

But why are you arguing?

Fine, lets try another approach, maybe you understand this one.

Lets assume no one exists or at the very least, every living person doesnt want to do anything other than lay under a palm tree and eat free food. Who would give you commie types what you think you deserve then? There would be no jobs, no money, no food.. nothing. Just a bunch of whiny poor people.

It sure helps when you can imagine up a fantasy land that doesn't exist to try and make your case.

I'm not even going to entertain it, since it's not a realistic argument. I can "counter" by saying that we'll just plant a bunch of Big Mac trees, and eat the Big Macs that they grow year-round. That's equally realistic.

Now one person thinks enough is enough.. but hes crazy selfish and doesnt give a crap about others. He puts in some manual labor and starts growing bananas. Now hes eating better than the rest. Tell me why would other people deserve even a single bite of hes delicious bananas?

Why wouldn't they?

So many wild presumptions that you're making, as if they're obvious truisms, and they're not. There's nothing at all about his investment in labor that entitles him to his entire crop. Where'd he get the money to own the land he farmed them on? Where'd he get the right to establish that the crops were "his" in the first place?

And that's ignoring that the fictional people you describe just flat-out don't exist, in the first place.

[Deleted]

Taxes aren't trade. They are force. Why should I pay taxes to enforce an economic system that benefits YOU at my expense? Why does the government have the right to impose that economic system on me, against my will?

Agreed. However.. if you refuse to pay for protection, youd have some other party coming in and forcing you to pay more so its just common sense.

[Endus]

Again what part of trade you dont understand? Military gives me safety from invasions in exchange, cops protect me from criminals.. feeding the poor gives me nothing so its a bad investment.

Well you cant because you dont have the power to do that. Its as simple as that. US government > you

It's awfully convenient when the "reasonable anarchist" gets to depend on government support and protection in only the ways they want, while deriding others for relying on that same support in the ways they might want.

You're being deliberately and blatantly hypocritical. You're not an anarchist. All you're describing is misanthrophic selfishness.