quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN might've been rawls (i forget) that talked about the relative "freedoms" and how a freedom to buy a loaf of bread isn't really a free choice if you don't have the money. what i am saying is there are far more options for wealthier people to minimise their tax than poorer people, so to say that "everyone can do it" isnt really accurate.

That's called "economic equality"

Which, and pay attention Shakka and Capitalizt, does NOT mean everybody has the same level of income! It means that money is not a barrier to accessing basic opportunities that will then allow you to make a success out of your life. The most obvious (for me anyway), would be free education for all

If people have access to the same level of opportunity regardless of how much wealth they have, then after that point it is down to them to make the most out of those opportunities. And that means those that have the drive and determination will be successful and those that don't, won't (altho economic equality does mean that those at the bottom of societies wealth ladder can still access basic life services like free health care)

what i find most amusing about libertarian theory is that it doesn't appreciate it possesses the seeds for its own demise. who was it that said modern societies are "only 3 meals away from revolution"? if we had a truly libertarian society, the polarisation of classes would be stark/complete and all that would happen is that huge throngs of the disenfranchised would just take what they wanted by force. how do you organise a response to rioting, looting and violence when your privatised police force is fractured and only protecting certain areas they've been paid to protect?

as much as libertarians hate the welfare state, ive always been of the opinion that it has functioned as a form of social control, which is why you'll find lots of the radical left that have a problem with it too.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what i find most amusing about libertarian theory is that it doesn't appreciate it possesses the seeds for its own demise. who was it that said modern societies are "only 3 meals away from revolution"? if we had a truly libertarian society, the polarisation of classes would be stark/complete and all that would happen is that huge throngs of the disenfranchised would just take what they wanted by force. how do you organise a response to rioting, looting and violence when your privatised police force is fractured and only protecting certain areas they've been paid to protect? as much as libertarians hate the welfare state, ive always been of the opinion that it has functioned as a form of social control, which is why you'll find lots of the radical left that have a problem with it too.

Exactly!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what i find most amusing about libertarian theory is that it doesn't appreciate it possesses the seeds for its own demise. who was it that said modern societies are "only 3 meals away from revolution"? if we had a truly libertarian society, the polarisation of classes would be stark/complete and all that would happen is that huge throngs of the disenfranchised would just take what they wanted by force. how do you organise a response to rioting, looting and violence when your privatised police force is fractured and only protecting certain areas they've been paid to protect? as much as libertarians hate the welfare state, ive always been of the opinion that it has functioned as a form of social control, which is why you'll find lots of the radical left that have a problem with it too.

In a true libertarian state, the general level of prosperity would be much higher than it is now...so I think the chance of "class polarization" would be minimal. Even if it were to occur, I don't think many libertarians are against the idea of government providing police and military forces. According to the libertarian philosophy, protecting people from physical violence is one of the only (if not THE only) legitimate function of government. I'm a hardcore libertarian on most issues and think the idea of privatized police is just plain stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The problem is, for me anyway, is not the tax system we use. If you could convince me that whatever tax system would provide adequite revenues to pay for public resources then fine. However, when tax systems are introduced to favour rich people, that is only going to lead to an overall decrease in the amount of revenue collected by government. Therefore, you'd have to make huge cut backs in public spending, which I would be against anyway, but assuming you don't care much for public spending, you CANNOT propose less taxes unless that goes in tandem with an explanation of which public services you will cut back on (and even then you need to make sure your figures tally up)

Please explain to me how our current progressive tax code in the states favors rich people?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Please explain to me how our current progressive tax code in the states favors rich people?

Don't recall saying it did?

Why don't you answer the points in my quote instead of inventing yet more strawmen to argue against?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt In a true libertarian state, the general level of prosperity would be much higher than it is now...

i dont have the time or inclination to get into a big argument now (it IS friday night after all!) but i just wanna say that's complete nonsense.

the best form of society (read: highest level of prosperity) is generated from a mixed economy, which is why all the western democracies have one

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Don't recall saying it did? Why don't you answer the points in my quote instead of inventing yet more strawmen to argue against?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The problem is, for me anyway, is not the tax system we use. If you could convince me that whatever tax system would provide adequite revenues to pay for public resources then fine. However, when tax systems are introduced to favour rich people, that is only going to lead to an overall decrease in the amount of revenue collected by government. Therefore, you'd have to make huge cut backs in public spending, which I would be against anyway, but assuming you don't care much for public spending, you CANNOT propose less taxes unless that goes in tandem with an explanation of which public services you will cut back on (and even then you need to make sure your figures tally up)

Jesus Christ George, it's not a strawman. I'm responding to specific things that you have said. If you don't mean to imply that my country's tax code favors the rich then why would you even say something like the above quote and why are you even participating in this debate? For the last time, the topic of this thread is the death tax (and more specifically the death tax in the U.S.). Fuck-n-a dude.

Were you ever...correction: How many times did your mommy drop you on your head when you were a baby?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Jesus Christ George, it's not a strawman. I'm responding to specific things that you have said. If you don't mean to imply that my country's tax code favors the rich then why would you even say something like the above quote and why are you even participating in this debate? For the last time, the topic of this thread is the death tax (and more specifically the death tax in the U.S.). Fuck-n-a dude. Were you ever...correction: How many times did your mommy drop you on your head when you were a baby?

Because me and Capitalizt weren't dicussing the current American tax system but a hypothetical tax system that Capitalizt would like to see introduced. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. If the government invested heavily in people's education then we wouldn't have to put up with the levels of illiteracy as demostrated by Shakka!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Because me and Capitalizt weren't dicussing the current American tax system but a hypothetical tax system that Capitalizt would like to see introduced. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. If the government invested heavily in people's education then we wouldn't have to put up with the levels of illiteracy as demostrated by Shakka!

So then you're completely fine with the U.S. tax code and all of your whining and carrying on for the last 4 pages has been for naught?

p.s. My education didn't cost taxpayers a single dime (in fact I'm still paying for it

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So then you're completely fine with the U.S. tax code and all of your whining and carrying on for the last 4 pages has been for naught?

Yawn, stop putting words in my mouth cos you've done that every post and I don't think anyone's falling for it

I don't know what the specific rates of tax are in America other than that it is a progressive system. IMO taxes should be higher across the board but progressively higher the richer people are. But to be honest, my gripe isn't too much with individual tax, but with low corporate taxes. I think corporate tax should be higher for the massive corporations (this could give smaller businesses a break giving all the benefis you like to harp on about)

Basically, if the government cannot afford to pay for the necessary public services then taxes are not high enough

quote:

p.s. My education didn't cost taxpayers a single dime (in fact I'm still paying for it

Here's 2p, go get your sen a new degree!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yawn, stop putting words in my mouth cos you've done that every post and I don't think anyone's falling for it I don't know what the specific rates of tax are in America other than that it is a progressive system. IMO taxes should be higher across the board but progressively higher the richer people are. But to be honest, my gripe isn't too much with individual tax, but with low corporate taxes. I think corporate tax should be higher for the massive corporations (this could give smaller businesses a break giving all the benefis you like to harp on about)

Forgive me then, George, but for the life of me I can't figure out why you threw your hat into the ring on this topic if you have no problem with the progressive system we have in my country. It would appear that you've attempted to hijack this thread and make it about something else.

And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm attempting to draw rational conclusions based on your constant verbal diarreah.

quote:

Basically, if the government cannot afford to pay for the necessary public services then taxes are not high enough

Certainly even you can acknowledge that the government takes in more than enough revenues to accomplish all of the social programs you desire and more, however spendthrift politicians continue to waste those revenues on boondoggles and special interests and the result is a massive budget deficit and de-prioritization of programs that you think have more merit. Don't blame the tax code George--blame the government that you love so much and want to make so much bigger (by increasing taxes).

quote:

Here's 2p, go get your sen a new degree!

It's serving me just fine, thanks.