No your tax numbers are not correct you did not factor in any deductions or tax credits. The child credit alone is 1000 dollars per child.
They get a 9,700 deduction for being married and filing jointly. Which gives me a raw number of 32709 which by your table gives a raw tax of 4201. Subtracting the child credit they pay 2201. That still seems high to me perhaps one of our more knowledgable tax dopers can set me straight.
First off you gave me a link to a page with 4 huge pdfs on it. I hardly call that citing a number. But I slogged through it and found what the median family of 4 paid in 1998 and it was 1467. So again your number is just plain wrong.
You took huge liberties with your numbers and I am showing your errors. I am not entirely sure how I am giving this family every advantage in your situation as you are the one that chose it. You chose a state with no sales tax so their state income tax is higher to compensate. Heck if you chose Florida there would be no state income tax at all. It is also duly noted that you don’t seem to be striving for accuracy.
You are correct.
Isn’t that swell but what does it have to do with this familiy’s tax burden?
Not to mention that isn’t its tax rate rather how the value of the property is calculated for local taxes.
The marriage deduction and child credits aren’t temporary flukes they have been around for a while.
O.K. how much do you estimate that the family will save by the fire department being privitized. Same for the police but remember our family already paid for state police and the FBI.
Give me some numbers.
And pray tell where did you get this number from and what services does it include. Remember that our family will need to pay for all of the services they currently get to make it a even comparison.
From this latest round of adjustment I get that our family is still approximately $3000 ahead with the full benefits of the Federal and State governments including a safety net that is non existant in Libertaria.
Let me ask you again. Why do you think the average family would be better off in Libertaria than a state with a larger welfare program?
By ‘work’ I mean ‘maintain sovereignty over their territory.’ Your hypothetical seems to assume a lot out of human nature that I’d not want to count on. How do you defend youself from encroachment? We’ve not established any way to guarantee national defense (f you want to concede a tax to establish this, as is a common libertarian position, I cede the point)
And if the state has no ability to engage in diplomacy, why should other countries recognize it as a nation? And failing all else, why wouldn’t someone annex this loose confederation and then impose their will on the inhabitants? You also seem to underestimate the ability of diplomacy to head off military action. the reason states can negotiate is because a state can speak for all of its people and enforce treaties, etc. from within. Without that guarantee, who would want to deal with you?
The point I am trying to make is that changing the philosophy of one group of people will not be enough. You also need to change the attitude of everyone else so that they respect your choice. At this point, I see no reason why they should, other than an appeal to what is ethical. That won’t take you far in a discussion of national self-interest.
I don’t understand that. How do you define “diplomacy”? I understand that a lib government wouldn’t get involved in trade issues, but there is more to diplomacy than traded, no? Are you saying that a lib government would not have a military and would not defend a country against invaders?
Why should we try it though? We have a good amount of evidence that unbridled capitalism leads to horrible conditions for the poor. We also have evidence that a capitalistic country with a large welfare program gives the best quality of life.
Your portion about humane nature struck me similar to the communists argument. The communists argument was that humans are inherently good and it is the system that corrupts them. By thier logic if every country instituted a communist government then the system will stop corrupting people. Eventually national governments would dissappear and we would all live happily together. Unfortunately this relys on a faulty premise that humans are inherently good. Heck look at the Pit and you will see numerous examples of the evil acts of humans. That doesn’t even include the countless wars, murders and robberies throughout history.
Actually, we don’t. We have evidence that governments in cahoots with big business leads to horrible conditions for the poor. We’ve been down this road many times before-- there has never been a country that had even close to a true Libertarian style government.
A libertarian government does not grant special favors to business, nor does it prevent workers from organizing. The labor movement is an integral part of the free market, not something outside the market imposed on it. Workers organizing and negotiating wages and working conditions is as much a part of the free market as is the business creation process.
Libertarian philosophy borrows the term “coercion” from the general vocabulary and assigns it the specific meaning of force or deception that is initiated by human agents in the form of a praxis. (Praxis is a term borrowed by Austrian economists to mean an action that is both voluntary and volitional — smoking is a praxis, but breathing is not.) Therefore, accidents of birth, forces of nature, laws of physics, rules of biology, that sort of thing — those do not constitute coercion in the libertarian sense. If you have to make a turn because there is no road ahead of you, that is not coercion in the sense we use the term. But if you have to make a turn because a man is holding a gun to your head and tells you to turn, that is coercion the way we mean it.
I believe that any protest about using the term in a specialized way would be silly, given that so many disciplines do exactly that. It is a practice that allows us to call the thing beside our keyboard a “mouse”. Many disciplines routinely borrow jargon from the general vocabulary in order to discuss things, rather than make up new words. If, for example, we are discussing Kant, we might use the term “phenomenon”. And we would not mean “[an] unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel”. Instead, we would mean an aspect of reality — specifically, the way reality appears to us as opposed to the way it really is. Physics, as another example, uses the word force to mean specifically mass times acceleration. Law (as in “the force of law”) uses the term a different way. And even baseball has borrowed the term (“a force play”).
Well, my main point was that the reforms which you credited to Peel and not to Parliament were in fact brought about by Parliament, of which Peel was a senior member. Fears of abuse by the police (or any other body with the right to wield force) are, up to a point, perfectly rational so it’s not surprising that they were raised in objection to the first police force. The political objections stemmed from a belief that giving the government the means to enforce its laws meant surrendering liberty.
On a general note, it’s no surprise that there was opposition to Peel within Parliament, much as there was opposition without. Parliament - government even - should reflect the beliefs of the people it claims to govern. Had the entirety of Parliament rubber-stamped Peel’s proposals, it could hardly claim to be representing the people, considering that (for example) many (generally wealthier) Britons believed that making children as young as six work for more than 12 hours a day was shrewd business practice. So there was a debate, both sides had their say, and in the end Parliament (as a whole, but not unanimously) passed the Factory Act. To say that those opposed or indifferent to the Act are evidence of “Parliament not giving a rat’s ass” while those who proposed, supported and voted for the legislation were “citizens working through government” strikes me as an invidious distinction.
You’re doing a pretty good job shilling for Bush’s tax plans, but once again you assign your hapless family that lives everywhere the most fortuitous possible circumstance. You are supposing, for example, that the father owes no child support, and that neither child turned 17 during the taxable year. And incidentally, you’ll have to revamp your example next year, because the credit amount takes a dive.
Well, I guess we’ll just have to call H&R block. The very fact that you and I are fiddling around with this, offering off-setting cites, with people jumping in to remind us of various and sundry exceptions and nuances is testament to the sheer idiocy of the entire system. The fact is that your family might qualify for some of the tax breaks, but you’d better make the dad a tax attorney so that they’ll know how to do it. After all, you haven’t figured in their hiring someone to do their taxes for them.
That’s nonsense. Both our numbers are being revised faster than we can type them out. And even some of the right ones will be wrong next year and were wrong last year. I could have chosen Alabama, with possibly the most onerous tax burden on the poor of any state.
Well, it is a wonder.
Because they have to buy things. The alleged “no sales tax” is hidden in the cost of goods for things sold in their state. All the state has done is rob them of their itemization on their sales receipt. If you owned a store in Oregon with a 70% property tax, how would you stay in business if you did not pass that cost along? Oregon has a capitol building and everything. They do not use slave labor to keep the bureaucracy going.
But the consumers have to pay it all the same. It is a hidden tax.
The marriage deduction? Do you mean the marriage penalty? According to June O’Neill, who testified before Congress as Director of the Congressional Budget Office in 1998, the government attempts to reconcile three principles that conflict: (1) treating married couples with equal income equally, (2) neutralizing marital status, and (3) taxing household income progressively. O’Neill said the task is impossible. “[The] incompatibility of progressive rates, equal treatment of married couples, and marriage neutrality results in a continuing tension within the tax code.”
I already gave that information in this thread. Find it.
$1.00, $1.33, $1.77, $2.37, $3.16.
Nonsense. They aren’t just paying for services they get; they’re paying for services they never heard of, like the Family Caregiver Alliance, or services they’ll never receive, like haircuts for Senators. I got the number by dividing the budget of the Defense Department by the population of the United States.
A safety net? You used up the safety net. They got what they got. To qualify for more, you have to make them vulnerable somehow, like take away their incredible luck and omniscience. They can jump in the net if you let them, say, quit work or something.
And let me ask you again, what do you mean by an average family? I think my family is pretty average, and we’d prefer to live in Libertaria.
Very well. I won’t fight you on the nuance between a man who happens to be a member of Parliament and the Parliament as a whole. It is irrelevant anyway to the point I was making, which is that throughout history, there have been innumerable instances of people having to force government to do the right thing. My American civil rights example, for instances, still stands.
Agreed. But doesn’t that fly in the face of Treis’s assertion that people prefer socialism over liberty?
Maybe so. But a principle that held children to be incapable of giving meaningful consent would have solved the whole issue.
I assumed all the same information for the family in Libertaria.
There is no might or some about it. Every family in America gets a child credit and a deduction for being married.
And the reason we are fiddling around with cites is becuase only one of us is striving for an honest accurate portrayal.
First off there is no 70% property tax. Second off all property tax goes to local government. Third the state pays for these things through the income tax which I added in. Lastly they can afford what they need even with this ‘hidden tax’.
Are you referring to the amount you pay for a volunteer fire department?
To which you replied you paid 20-40$ a year but you “don’t know how the initial trucks were bought.” I also didn’t see anything in there about how much the Police department would cost.
No I mean the amount you get to deduct from your taxable amount becuase you are married. I am not interested in debating what our tax policy should be. I am interested in looking at what our current tax policy is and whether an average family is better off living under it or in Libertaria.
What a brilliant debating tactic when asked for numbers backing up your statement you come back with a smart ass response. Do you have any evidence at all for your statements?
What safety net are they using? They are paying for their medical care, food and shelter. I am saying that is availible for them if they need it. For example if the father can’t work anymore they can get food stamps and housing assistance as opposed to Libertaria where they would presumably just starve to death.
Are 1 month olds are responsible for paying now? Or is it their family? Becuase if it is the family you just knocked their payment to Libertaria up to 5200 which is about what they currently pay in taxes. Not to mention you didn’t include any money for the judicial system or the police.
I mean a family earning an average income (which you are not even close to) are they better off in Libertaria?
Yes but it still was the big businesses that were paying a pittance for dangerous work.
Yes but fledgling unions are easily crushed by businesses. I would argue that the reason we have so many unions is that they are protected by law. Here is a list of 35 things employers can not do.
Well then, that’s just crazy. That’s like assuming the same information for a family in Cuba and a family in Miami. The Libertarian family is not constrained by the endless bureaucratic coercion that haunts the American family from the time they wake up until the time they go to sleep. (Do you have any idea how many regulations govern the manufacture of pillows?) Nor do they fear the coercion of neighbors and businesses. A family of four in Libertaria that makes only the equivalent of forty grand a year would be considered bottom of the barrel dirt poor.
Your lack of precision is daunting in its sheer ubiquity. They might qualify — qualify — for it if they meet certain criteria with respect to their relationship with the children, the children’s ages, the father’s status with respect to prior children, and so forth. But qualifying and getting are two different things. If they fail to take advantage of the government loot, government will not offer it to them. It is not ensuring their rights, but merely posting their privileges and leaving them to find the means and wherewithall to take advantage of it.
Agreed.
Well, of course they can. It’s a magical family.
Yes, and I compared it with a friend from the city.
It was $20-$50. The police would be included in the fee paid to government, except that the concept would be quite different. In your system, police are not required to protect citizens or even respond to calls. Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), in the D.C. Court of Appeals, held that “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen”. And Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said that “(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
Well then, why didn’t you say so? They’re better off living in Libertaria.
The numbers hold a simple pattern for the discerning eye. It is a dollar marked up 25% five times. Assuming (generously) that some good or service with a dollar base-tax exchanges hands five times between its conception and your consumption, that’s how much just a dollar becomes. That price inflation does not occur in Libertaria.
Why do you make such presumptions? I’ll bet you that I got my food faster from the Crisis Assistance Ministry than I would have from the four-eyed bitch at the welfare office, who hardly looked up at me the entire time and marked me down as the wrong race before she rejected me. Why would there not be charity and philanthropy in Libertaria?
One-month-olds are incapable of giving meaningful consent, and therefore cannot be governed. Their rights are accrued as nonconsenting parties to a unary contract. There is no judicial system, but rather a system of arbitration. And the police is quite a different thing as well. There is no ongoing legislation of any kind.
I don’t know why a family earning an average income would be called an average family. I guess the Addam’s family could be called average if they made the right amount. Anyway, they’d be better off in Libertaria, where goods and services are less expensive, of higher quality, and more readily available.
What you are saying is that the endless bureaucratic coercion drives wages down to roughly 25% percent of what they should be? What evidence do you have to back this up with?
Then why did you set the fee at the DoD’s budget divided by the population?
Why is there not charity and philanthropy in America? We have people that go hungry, are homeless and don’t have access to medical care. Why would people in Libertaria start giving while in America they don’t?
What does that mean? They are parties to what contract?
Well go ahead and explain.
How much cheaper and how much more available would they be? What evidence do you have to support these claims?
I can’t give you evidence. There is no Libertaria. Your’re talking about another hypothetical here. There is no synthetic knowledge with respect to price and wage structures in a noncoercive market. It merely stands to reason that lower costs and more competition mean lower prices.
Other people derive other figures by other means, but it seems to me that the DOD budget represents a reasonable place to start. Since a considerable portion of that budget is committed to a worldwide hegemonic imperialism, I think that the actual cost of defending the US from foreign coercion is far less than the budget. Once its role changes from policeman of the world to policeman of the homeland (I hate that Bush has ruined that term), it will have withdrawn forces stationed in half the nations on earth. It will have abandoned the maintenance of far flung fleets and divisions that do little more than provoke the world to hate us. Once its legislative mandates are removed, it will have taken on the role of defending individual citizens against coercion from one another — much more simple task logistically. Plus, it will benefit from the same lower costs that everyone else enjoys. So, in short, the number is just my best guess. There simply is no precedent to go by.
That just isn’t true. The top 100 philanthropic foundations gave almost $10.5 billion last year. The top 50 corporate givers accounted for more than $1.5 billion. And the top 25 community foundations gave more than $1.2 billion. (Cite.) Plus, 60 percent of Americans volunteered for charitable work, giving an average of 192 hours of their time. (Cite.) You can Google for yourself the private charity donations, and so forth.
Their birth was a coercion. That makes their parents beholden to them until such time as they reach an age of consent.
There is only one law: Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon. The purpose of arbitration is to interpret that law as it applies to voluntary human relations.
I think it would vary. I think there would be less change in massive infrastructure goods and services and greater change in consumables. At least at first. I think that over time, practically everything would be less expensive because of less cost overhead, of greater quality because of the necessity for greater consumer savvy (less dependence on third parties like governments), and more available because of the lack of coercive obstacles facing entrepreneurs who otherwise could not try to compete. (There is no Senator Fatcat doing a favor for Mr. Tycoon.)
So in essence what you are saying is that you pulled that number out of thin air. Why should I believe that your numbers are anywhere close to what they would be in Libertaria? I can just as easily say that without government protection unions would be quickly crushed in Libertaria causing real wages to drop drastically for the average Libertarian. Why is your reasoning any more valid than mine?
No theoretical study or anything? Just another guess you pulled out of the air?
It isn’t enough though we still have hunger, we still have the homeless and we still have people without medical care. Why would people in Libertaria decide to help these people while in America they don’t.
Does that mean there is no fee for children? If so then why did you divide the DoD’s budget by the total population.
What is the age of consent in Libertaria and what does that mean if the only law is that the “Government shall garuntee every citizens freedom from coercion”?
What does that mean? If someone is murdered does the government investigate? If someone strays onto my property am I free to blow their head off? What if your factory is polluting the rivers and air can I stop you? Does it mean that the government will not enforce contracts? What about patent rights does the government protect those? What about traffic accidents? What about paternity suits? What about inheritence laws? The list goes on and on. How can you base a entire legal system spanning from murder to embezzlement to copy right violation on 8 words.
Is there any police at all?
I see this time you didn’t even bother to make up a number.
In short all your argument seems to be based on is the short comings of the United States government. I know the benefits and shortcomings of our current government you need to convince me Libertaria would be better for the average person. You need to convince an average worker in say France who has shelter, food, medical care, transportation, police, fire and numerous other benefits garunteed by the government to abandon those.
I and I doubt anyone else will take the “best guess” of someone who can’t even get close to calculating an average families tax burden in America.
Take this statement for example.
You didn’t answer the question of why you chose the DoD budget you just said it is a ‘reasonable place to start’. You said it yourself the US military has a drastically different role than the military of Libertaria. The DoD budget has no bearing on what Libertaria’s judicial system will cost. To me it looks like you used that number becuase I used in my analysis.
An irrelevant little short about the use of the US’s military. I know all of this and I don’t support it. This is doing nothing to convince me.
I and I doubt anyone else will take the “best guess” of someone who can’t even get close to calculating an average families tax burden in America.
Should be I ** won’t ** and I doubt anyone else will take the “best guess” of someone who can’t even get close to calculating an average family’s tax burden in America.
Gosh, and you were almost being civil there for a while. I’m not surprised that you equate logic and reason to “thin air”.
Why should I care what you believe?
No, you can’t. Libertaria protects union members from coercion just as much as other citizens.
Apparently, because I know what libertarianism is.
As I said, there have been many such estimates. You visit Cato. After all, you cited them. Go there and read their papers.
Come to think of it, as I read your post, I am feeling a warm wind.
Now, why should I give you the figures for American philanthropy and charity again? You are making a false statement, and everyone who reads to this point knows it.
I explained why to a fare-thee-well. Read it.
It is whatever age the parents and children decide. In the event of disagreement, the government arbitrates. Some people mature faster and slower than others. Some are never capable of giving meaningful consent. A person might be severely retarded or brain damaged.
Of course.
Not necessarily. Not just for straying. Excessive force, even in defense, is coercive.
If the pollution invades your property, you can.
Of course not.
There is no such thing as patent rights.
What about them?
What about them?
What about the word “one” don’t you understand?
Yeah, I’ve seen the list a bazzilion times, mostly from people who can type faster than they can think.
Both murder and embezzlement are coercions.
I’m not going to answer that for you a third time.
You’re right. I bothered constructing a logical argument whose essence and substance escape you.
You have summed up your own argument nicely. All you have done is make up reified propositions about an hypostatized entity that does not exist, and assign to it the worst possible outcome based on such ridiculously false assertions as Americans don’t give to charity.
No, I do not. In fact, what I told you from the get go is that the difference between us is that I couldn’t care less whether you live in Libertaria or not. I am not attempting to convert you or sell you on anything. You enjoy living off the success of others, and assuring your own comfort by means of someone else’s labor. Libertaria is decidedly not for you.
Your fellow socialists do not share your rosy view of France.
I don’t think you and you are close either. Plus, I think you and you have confused average with median, since you and you said you and you meant income when you and you said families.
That IS my answer. Once again, I must remind you that your dissatisfaction does not constitute my evasion. I’m not satisfied with any of your answers either, but I don’t want to join in with the dishonesty, and pretend like you’re not answering.
Once again, there is no judicial system; there is a system of arbitration. Giving you answers is like giving a blind man a tour through a photography exhibit. The DOD has a judicial system, and it can be modified into a system of arbitration at undoubtedly less cost.
Convince you? Let me be clear. I do not want you to embrace libertarianism. I do not want it sullied and ruined beyond all recognition by a Neanderthal set of interpretation skills.
Come on, Liberal, treis has reined in his hostility, that is not a green flag for you to begin injecting inflammatory observations about his reasoning.
I suspect that the two of you may as well knock it off, anyway; I doubt that this discussion is going to bear any fruit. (That is an observation, not an order or even a suggestion.)
What logic? How did you come to 40000 being dirt poor? Why not 50000? Why not 30000?
I thought you wanted to live in Libertaria that means you need to convince everyone else that they should too.
How will they be protected? Won’t any protection you give them be coercing the factory owner?
Perhaps something more than cryptic one line responses will explain it better.
Why don’t you link to the one that you get your numbers from.
Are you telling me that we don’t have any hungry people, homeless people or people without medical care in a America? Why would Libertarians be compelled to meet these needs while Americans don’t?
Where
What test does Libertaria use? How is ensured that the test is consistant throughout Libertaria? You also didn’t answer whether or not Libertaria charges a fee for children.
Why are you coercing property owners from protecting their property with the level of force they deem necessary? How is defensive force coercive? I did not force or even invite the person on my property.
How do you determine how much pollution is too much? How is the owner of the chemical plant supposed to know the acceptable level of pollution if the only law he knows of is “Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon.”
Why is the government of Libertaria coercing me into fufiling my contract?
Why would anyone expend effort on research and developement if their inventions can just be stolen by the competitor at no cost?
How are they handled? If I am injured in an accident do I have the ability to sue? If I do what defines negligence or fault in the accident?
Who gets the kid if the parents divorce absent of a prior agreement?
How am I supposed to know that my interpetation of the one law is correct? I see that my interpetation of defensive force and contracts are different than yours and thats only out of 10 or so questions.
No explanation just a little insult?
Who am I coercing when I embezzle money from an orginization? I did not force anyone to give me money nor did I enter into any sort of contract with how their money will be used. For example if I set up a charity saying that I will help the poor and pocket 95% of the donations is that illegal? I still give 5% of the money to the poor so my charity does help the poor.
How is murder differentiated from an accidental killing from say manslaughter?
All you said was that the “police would be quite different”. How would they be quite different?
It surely doesn’t escape me. Goods will be cheaper without government intervention. This isn’t exactly a brilliant conclusion. The devil lies in the details though how much cheaper will goods be and is that benefit better than having a government?
Now you are twisting my words. I never said Americans don’t give to charity I said they don’t give ** enough **.
There are also plenty of families like the one I described in America. Having an average income is common and having two kids is also common. I did not give them any magical deductions or fantasy tax breaks. I used our current tax law to get a general idea of how much they would pay.
Hahahah.
I for one am not going to live off the work of others. I just don’t want people starving, homeless and without medical care.
What is wrong with my numbers?
You are telling me that making up a number for the income of the dirt poor that is 3-4 times what it is in the U.S. is an honest answer? As far as I can tell your logic is less government means more efficency sooo lets grab a number and say 40000 will be dirt poor. The poverty level for a single person is 9,310 in America so in effect you will have to quadruple the amount of goods and services produced in Libertaria. That is assuming an equal distribution which rarely happens. Again are you telling me that the government is keeping production at 25% of what it should be?
See I think we have found the problem here. You say that the government will secure the right of the people from coercion and I am expected to derive what the entire legal system and society would be. I have no idea what is the correct interpetation is becuase you bristle at half the questions and ignore the other half. How is your average Libertarian supposed to know what reasonable force is in defending his property? How is he supposed to know how much pollution he can put out?
Let me be clear. I do not want you to embrace libertarianism. I do not want it sullied and ruined beyond all recognition by a Neanderthal set of interpretation skills.