Is there anything wrong with "class warfare"?

[Kobal2]

@mmmbeer

I ain’t drinking the kool-aid quite yet.

It’s not a question of drinking the kool-aid or not. Considering I’m thoroughly (and purposefully) apolitical, I’m not quite sure which flavour of kool-aid I’d be trying to make you sip anyway.
As I said, there are perfectly valid reasons to oppose or support this or that tax initiative and you’re quite welcome to them. But the argument that a given bit of government spending is morally wrong because it involves coercively re-organizing the wealth of the citizenry isn’t valid however (and is pretty much guaranteed to be a last ditch “I got nuthin” hail mary argument whenever it is made), because that’s what *all *taxation does - all the quibbling is about the specifics, the degrees and the amounts. Not the underlying economic (or moral) principles at work.

So, in practical terms, “I oppose welfare because those mooches haven’t earned it” would be a valid argument (if a bit silly and missing the point), just as “I support building a fire station because the district needs one and it would benefit the majority” would be ; but “I oppose welfare because it constitutes Redistribution of Wealth” is nonsensical*. And you don’t have to register at the local office of the Party to recognize that (or *when *you recognize that).

---

• Unless you also oppose the very concepts of taxation and government - which happens to be a valid position ! Albeit a thoroughly retarded one for the most part :).

[mmmbeer]

@Kobal2

It’s not a question of drinking the kool-aid or not. Considering I’m thoroughly (and purposefully) apolitical, I’m not quite sure which flavour of kool-aid I’d be trying to make you sip anyway.
As I said, there are perfectly valid reasons to oppose or support this or that tax initiative and you’re quite welcome to them. But the argument that a given bit of government spending is morally wrong

I have stated many times that I am not talking about the spending side. I only refer to that part when some people claim that Redistribution of Wealth doesn’t exist

because it involves coercively re-organizing the wealth of the citizenry isn’t valid however (and is pretty much guaranteed to be a last ditch “I got nuthin” hail mary argument whenever it is made), because that’s what *all *taxation does - all the quibbling is about the specifics, the degrees and the amounts. Not the underlying economic (or moral) principles at work.

So, in practical terms, “I oppose welfare because those mooches haven’t earned it” would be a valid argument (if a bit silly and missing the point), just as “I support building a fire station because the district needs one and it would benefit the majority” would be ; but “I oppose welfare because it constitutes Redistribution of Wealth” is nonsensical*. And you don’t have to register at the local office of the Party to recognize that (or *when *you recognize that).

I haven’t said I oppose welfare. My whole arguement has been to support a single rate tax system.

---

• Unless you also oppose the very concepts of taxation and government - which happens to be a valid position ! Albeit a thoroughly retarded one for the most part :).

I disagree with the income tax because it isn’t needed, buy my choice 2 and 3 both included an income tax.

[mmmbeer]

@Fear_Itself

I’ll take that as a yes.

Take it as you will and I will refrain from making suggestions.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

I beg your pardon. Begging is income, tips are income. Kids selling lemonade are earning income. By law, income must be reported to the IRS.

Or are you in favor of letting certain categories of low-income earners slide? This is important.

mmmbeer, are you still thinking what your position is? Or are you trying to avoid answering my simple question?

[mmmbeer]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

I beg your pardon. Begging is income, tips are income. Kids selling lemonade are earning income. By law, income must be reported to the IRS.

Or are you in favor of letting certain categories of low-income earners slide? This is important.

Your question got lost in the haze…So, are we down to quibbling about kids lemonade stands?

To be honest, I haven’t fleshed this out to the gnat’s ass hairs. There is plenty to concern us with people with real jobs making real money, not a bum or a kid trying to save up to buy a new bicycle. Tips would be reported as they are now and taxed at the same rate as everyone else…That is that whole all income regardless of source thing.

We can’t agree that for each say 10,000 being taxed the same as every other 10,000 being fair, so this is kind of a moot point isn’t it?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

You’re either willing to make exceptions to your flat-tax ideas or you’re not. If you’re having so much trouble deciding if you are or not, maybe you should take a nice long nap, and come back to this thread when you’re willing to do this sort of work.

[mmmbeer]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

You’re either willing to make exceptions to your flat-tax ideas or you’re not. If you’re having so much trouble deciding if you are or not, maybe you should take a nice long nap, and come back to this thread when you’re willing to do this sort of work.

That is certainly one option, or I can argue the major points and deal with the minutiea at a later date.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

No, because people need to know what you’re talking about. If you’re willing to concede that taxing lemonade stands and comatose junkies is going too far, then welcome to the ongoing discussion that we’ve been having for several hundred years, exempting certain people from taxation, increasing tax rates for some, decreasing overall rates for others, etc. But if you’re not, then it’s a pretty simple proposal you’re making, one that has been laughed out of our discussion long ago.

Which is it?

[mmmbeer]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

No, because people need to know what you’re talking about. If you’re willing to concede that taxing lemonade stands

I would pass on kids. I didn’t realize it was critical to the class warfare question, but there ya go.

and comatose junkies is going too far

You still didn’t tell me this crackheads income, so I can’t answer.

then welcome to the ongoing discussion that we’ve been having for several hundred years, exempting certain people from taxation

I am willing to set a poverty level that isn’t taxed at all, see choice 3, but no one pays it on that amount.

increasing tax rates for some, decreasing overall rates for others

This is what I’m dead set against. This is what causes the trouble. It is easy to say let’s raise the rates on this other group and not our group. This is the warfare right here. Envy is actually how we got into this whole income tax CF to start with.

Has anyone else ever looked up the first income tax form? Form and instructions on one sheet of paper.

etc. But if you’re not, then it’s a pretty simple proposal you’re making, one that has been laughed out of our discussion long ago.

Which is it?

Simple and clear and transparent is good. No hiding your money from to tax man.

So can we get back to the meat and potatoes now?

[Kobal2]

@mmmbeer

I disagree with the income tax because it isn’t needed, buy my choice 2 and 3 both included an income tax.

1. that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve said
2. lrn 2 /quote, I just now realized you had been answering stuff within the quote block, essentially adding it to “my” text. Not only is it against board rules (because it makes it look like I’m saying things I never said, even though I’m relatively sure that wasn’t your intention), but it’s not exactly clear, is it ? Reported your posts so that a mod can clear up the quote tags.

[mmmbeer]

@ Kobal2
not sure what you’re talking about. I didn’t get chatrooms 101, so just trying my best.

[Marley23]

@Kobal2

I just now realized you had been answering stuff within the quote block, essentially adding it to “my” text. Not only is it against board rules (because it makes it look like I’m saying things I never said, even though I’m relatively sure that wasn’t your intention), but it’s not exactly clear, is it ?

@mmmbeer

@ Kobal2
not sure what you’re talking about.

mmmbeer, if you are responding to multiple lines in a person’s post, please add extra quote tags like so:
[noparse]

@Someone else

Text you are quoting

[/noparse]
If you put your text inside the quote box, as you’ve done with at least two posts in this thread, it becomes very confusing and it makes it hard for people to reply to your comments.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Somebody posting under your name said this - I gave you someone who was not simply audited, but convicted and sent to prison, despite not using currency.
You claim one can avoid taxes by not using currency. I provided an example of someone who tried to avoid taxes by not using currency.

No you didn’t. You provided an example of someone who tried to avoid taxes by engaging in one specific transaction that didn’t use currency. That’s not what I asked for. I asked for someone who didn’t use currency, full stop.

Is that a ridiculous request? Sure. There’s probably nobody in our country who’s not dependent on a competent adult who doesn’t use currency, full stop. THAT’S THE POINT.

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

No you didn’t.

Yes, I did.

You provided an example of someone who tried to avoid taxes by engaging in one specific transaction that didn’t use currency. That’s not what I asked for. I asked for someone who didn’t use currency, full stop.

And I quoted you the IRS cite that shows that, even if you don’t use currency, ever, you are still going to be on the hook for taxes. That’s the law. It applies to all barters, whether you do it some of the time, most of the time, or all of the time. So even if someone does all his transactions without using currency, he is still on the hook for taxes.

So we go back to the same question that you gave a false and stupid answer before - on what basis are you going to avoid paying taxes on the house you acquired via barter? Your earlier claim, that if you never did anything but barter you could avoid taxes, is false and has been refuted. Your other, even sillier claim, was that you could just ignore the taxman, is also refuted.

So, again - how does someone who has never used currency in his life, and who has bartered his way up to owning a house, avoid paying property tax?

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Yes, I did.And I quoted you the IRS cite that shows that, even if you don’t use currency, ever, you are still going to be on the hook for taxes. That’s the law. It applies to all barters, whether you do it some of the time, most of the time, or all of the time. So even if someone does all his transactions without using currency, he is still on the hook for taxes.

Round the merry-go-round we go.

The request was not for the law. The request was for you to show me someone who has been audited despite not using currency.

Is there someone who has never used currency as an adult who has been audited? Or no?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@mmmbeer

I would pass on kids.

Really? All kids? Up to how old? Kids who have a billion-dollar portfolio get a complete pass?

[QUOTE=mmmbeer]
You still didn’t tell me this crackheads income, so I can’t answer.
[/QUOTE]

Really? So depending on her income, you may be willing to exempt her from taxes? She has at least a nickel per year in income, because I specified she’d begged that much: do you want a penny? Two pennies? Or can she keep the whole nickel?

I am willing to set a poverty level that isn’t taxed at all, see choice 3, but no one pays it on that amount.

What is that level? Why are these freeloaders exempt? It’s outrageous–you welfare-crazy liberals always want to give away OUR hard-earned money to the moochers!!!

[Esox_Lucius]

@mmmbeer

I didn’t say nothing bad happens. The point which you seem almost determined to miss is that this example is you making a choice. Someone else forcing their will on you is another thing entirely.

Yes, you did say exactly that: “If you don’t enter into a voluntary trade for gasoline, nothing bad happens to you.” The repercussions for not buying gas don’t come from the government, but there are still repercussions, so it isn’t exactly a voluntary purchase.

But never mind that. This is about paying taxes to the government. You’re apparently okay with the way some of your tax dollars are spent even though you pay them “under threat of force”, but you object to the way some others are collected because it’s done under threat of force. That’s the disconnect that I’m not getting.

I’m not complaining that taxes are paid under threat of force, I’m stating it is a fact that they are paid under threat of force. To buy the gasoline or to not buy the gasoline holds no repurcussion from shell whichever way I choose. I do not argue that the cost of government should not be paid, but that it should be paid equally by all.

Those taxes would still be collected under threat of force, so bringing the “threat of force” meme into the debate does nothing, other than to add emotion to the anti-government side of the debate. If you don’t like some taxes, fine. You can try to do something about it every four years, but objecting to them on the grounds that “they’re collected under threat of force” makes no sense at all.

Because if we are to live together in society, we must give up some of our natural rights like killing, raping, and stealing, else the benefits that are gained from our close association are not worth it.

I totally agree, but we also obey the law “under threat of force” from the government, and I don’t see anyone objecting to it on those grounds.

(As a reminder, this debate got started when puddleglum said, “On the other hand every dollar that is extracted by taxes comes with the threat of force behind it.” That’s what I’m responding to.)

[Docta_G]

Only if the upper class wins.

[mmmbeer]

@ pseudotriton
I would pass on kids.
Really? All kids? Up to how old? Kids who have a billion-dollar portfolio get a complete pass?
The kids you asked about…with lemonade stands…Don’t change the question in the middle of the stream.

You still didn’t tell me this crackheads income, so I can’t answer.
Really? So depending on her income, you may be willing to exempt her from taxes?
Really? You don’t understand that your income tax is dependant on your, uhhh, umm, what is that called?, oh yes, INCOME?

I am willing to set a poverty level that isn’t taxed at all, see choice 3, but no one pays it on that amount.
What is that level? Why are these freeloaders exempt?
10, 20 thousand…The principle that you steadfastly don’t talk about is that the rule is the same for everyone. If you want to not tax the first 10K for little mary crack whore, then no one is taxed on that first 10K. If you want the rate to be 90%, then the rate is 90% for everyone…

I’m not answering any more of these single questions as they are not relevant to the class warfare question. No one is suggesting picking money out of panhandlers hats or confiscating lemonade stand revenues. If you want to get back to whether class warfare is right or wrong, I’m with ya.

[mmmbeer]

@ Esox
I thought it was clear the because it started with the post, “On the other hand every dollar that is extracted by taxes comes with the threat of force behind it.” that with the buying gas example everyone could see that I was contrasting

A) the government says give me this money or we will put you in jail and take your property
with
B) we will trade X gallons of gas for Y dollars if you want to or not if you don’t want to

So anyone can understand that in one case, the other side will do something bad to you if you don’t do what is proposed and in the other case, neither side will do anything to the other if they don’t do anything. I can trade with shell or bp or ride a horse if I want to and none of them will do anything bad to me. My transportation concerns and how I go about providing for them is my choice.

That there will be self imposed repercussions if you choose not to eat is not equal to me chaining you to a tree and not feeding you. If you can’t see the difference, well, I don’t know if it is will or skill, but there is some other problem that talking to you will not fix. In the one case you do a thing by choice and in the other you have a thing done to you by force. I just can’t make it any clearer than that!

bringing the “threat of force” meme into the debate does nothing…
See the above. I didn’t start that phrase, but it is very easy to see that if I threaten your freedom and property in one example and we just don’t trade in another example, that means something…Those two are as different as trade could possibly be.

If you don’t like some taxes, fine. You can try to do something about it every four years
It is almost as if you are trying to miss the point…It isn’t that I don’t like some taxes, it is that I want all taxes applied the same to everyone. It isn’t that I’m objecting to them because “they’re collected under threat of force”. I’m not objecting to taxation at all. BTW, everthing the government does is under threat of force. Did you see any regulation ever passed that started with please, or if you feel like it? No, it says shall or shall not, and ends with, the congress shall have the power to enforce. So, it isn’t even an objection to government itself. We need government. That is clear.

So, once more and for the last time, It isn’t that I don’t like some taxes, it is that I want all taxes applied the same to everyone.