RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 6:58am

Link

Edit

There are no "good" tax systems; some are less "bad" than others. You present several possible problems with the Fair Tax, yet I still think if it were carefully done, it would have many advantages over the income tax. After Social Security, tax reform is Bush's biggest second term agenda item. I still hold out hope that he will propose something quite bold when he gets to it. In general, betting that Bush will take the less bold approach to a problem has been a sure way to lose money. I hope to see a lively discussion on taxes here at that time and plan to be in the middle of the storm when that occurs.
Meanwhile, FairTax.org is a way to start to understand the alternatives.

Post 1

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 8:53am

Link

Edit

True libertarians and Objectivists would accept nothing less than the fairest tax of all: the head tax.

I began pondering the other day why most libertarians are more primarily concerned with fiscal matters than social matters, i.e. why do we want lower taxes but don't really get as riled about, say, marijuana? Well, first of all, we all pay taxes, so it affects us all, whereas marijuana only affects a minority (although a larger minority than I think anyone is willing to admit). However, it is right to be more concerned with fiscal matters, because the government can pass all the laws it wants (de facto, in a perfect world...), however, if they don't have the funds, they are a paper tiger.

Sorry for the tangent. Anyway, the smartest and fairest tax is the head tax, at about $1500 per person for the DoDefense, and that's all. If you can't get defend the country for that money, we raise it, but I doubt we'd have to.

Post 2

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:55am

Link

Edit

If this really get anywhere I'll be impressed.

A major problem is that past "savers" will be penalised e.g. those nearing retirement. They were taxed on their earnings (some of which was saved) and now will be taxed on spending (some from savings which they were taxed on before).

However in an ideal world I would prefer VAT/sales taxes to income taxes. Its more difficult for a politician to isolate you as an individual and make you pay more (than the poor guy/guy with good accountant/dishonest guy). The comments on VAT are valid - practically you would need VAT rather than a sales tax.

A head tax would of course be best - but it'll probably be impossible to get Congress' spending habits down to Stephen's proposed levels!

Post 3

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 2:16pm

Link

Edit

No change of the tax code means anything unless programs are eliminated and/or spending is drastically reduced. The money still has to come from somewhere.

Post 4

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 2:52pm

Link

Edit

Wonderful article, Jim.

I am opposed to all taxation with no reservations. Any compromise on this position is evil. To say one is going to stop initiating force one way so that one can initiate force a different way is still an initiation of force. I oppose the current system and all proposed new tax systems.

Government can easily fund itself by limiting its role only to its proper functions,charging user fees for those functions and selling off its considerable assets.

You can't get good from a bad, ever, or as Ayn Rand said, "There can be no compromise on moral issues," and, "There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender--the recognition of his right to one's property," and "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

To Bush and his ilk, I say phooey.

Post 5

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 3:46pm

Link

Edit

M. Palin raises an interesting point...what is the moral position on taxation? Does the Constitution therefore violate NIOF, or is it a Lockean social contract, and therefore moral? If 99% of people sign the social contract, does that make it bind on the others, or do they become non-citizens? There are some interesting moral and economics-related questions for this line.

Post 6

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:41pm

Link

Edit

Steven,

The Constitution does violate NIOF in some cases. Eminent domain and the 16th amendment are just two examples that spring to mind. The bill of rights was an attempt to enumerate the natural, unalienable rights that men have. This is stated clearly in the 9th amendment. Any IOF in the constitution should properly be struck down.

Government is not a social contract. It is, in its proper form, an organized effort by individuals to protect their rights. When government acts properly, it is acting in extension of the rights of the individuals who form it. With no IOF, no individual has a need to defend themselves from government. When government initiates force, all individuals have the right to defend themselves from it.

Post 7

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:16pm

Link

Edit

The problem with always presenting the moral argument TO THE EXCLUSION of the political argument is that while you are sitting to one side righteously sipping your victory cognac, someone else is winning the political argument and taking us all further from the desired moral and political goal. It is true that a 50% tax is immoral, but a country of ten that taxes five men 100% and the other five 0% is less moral than a country of ten that taxes all men 50%.
I think one should always make clear his opposition to taxation in general. However, it is not being immoral to support policies that do less damage while we are awaiting the arrival of the limo to Galtch's Gulch.

Post 8

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:53pm

Link

Edit

Pete had it right. Changing the ways of taxation is unimportant and inadvisable until programs are eliminated/spending is cut.

I second others� concern that income taxes will be retained after the implementation of a new system of taxation (if spending is high like it is now.)

Jon

Post 9

Friday, February 11, 2005 - 10:02pm

Link

Edit

Or, I should say that I second Jim�s concern that we will be stuck with two ways to tax us.

Good article, Jim. Thanks.

Jon

Post 10

Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 2:46am

Link

Edit

From what I have read about it, it seems like the substitution of one rotten scheme for another.

All the exact same problems would arise out of this taxation system than income tax. It would probably just exact a massive administration cost for the Government restructuring of the tax department.

It's a lose-lose situation if you ask me.

Better to just get a simplified and massively reduced income tax - if you really want change for the better.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 2/12, 3:33am)

Post 11

Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 4:41am

Link

Edit

The problem with always presenting the moral argument TO THE EXCLUSION of the political argument...

James, there is no dichotomy between the moral and the political. The political is derived from the moral or the immoral, as the case may be. Granted that there are degrees of evil between governments as well as individuals. And there are degrees of evil related to taxation: the greater the tax, the greater the evil. But as I stated, no good will come from compromise with evil.

I support neither the current nor proposed alternatives. I've never seen a tax cut I haven't liked nor a tax increase I haven't disliked. If there is any initiation of force, in any proposal, even if it includes the elimination of some other initiation of force, irregardless of the amount of either, I would oppose that proposal completely. I believe Ayn Rand was clear and correct: no compromise on moral principles, ever.

Oh, and I don't drink cognac, I prefer draft beer.:-)

(Edited by Bob Palin on 2/12, 8:21pm)

Post 12

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:29pm

Link

Edit

I have read The FairTax Book, newly published on August 2nd, and I see a number of fallacious assumptions in the above discussion of the FairTax plan.

(For example, it is incorrect to assume that retirees would be taxed twice -- because prices wouldn't actually change from their current levels.)

There is a real danger in criticizing political initiatives of which you have limited first-hand knowledge.

For anyone with an interest in the topic, I strongly recommend READING THE BOOK. It's well-written, it's a carefully thought-out plan, and it certainly convinced me that the FairTax plan would constitute a significant improvement over what we have today.

So, go get the facts.... read the book! Here's a link: http://www.theatlasphere.com/fairtaxbook