Sound Money vs Tax Choice

[Henry Rogue]

I could foresee a big bubble in government departments advertising against each other. You think you get sick of poitical ads just wait till gov. competes for your money.

[Steven Douglas]

I could foresee a big bubble in government departments advertising against each other. You think you get sick of poitical ads just wait till gov. competes for your money.

They'd give the pharmaceutical and insurance companies a run for their money, that's for sure. Pandering on crack, with advertising budgets for the successful ones never before seen, given that at least one popular agency or department is absolutely guaranteed to have an ass-load of revenue, and no real competition for whatever it is they do.

[Steven Douglas]

If public education is defunded by taxpayers...it means that the scope of government narrowed. The government used to do A through P...and now it does A through O. As a result...congress would decrease the tax rate.

The fuck it would.

Or maybe congress would not decrease the tax rate.

Use history as your guide, and you tell me. You already said that all entities, public and private, are profit-maximizing. In the case of government say "revenue-maximizing" to be accurate.

Taxpayers would be responsible for funding congress though...so if taxpayers were not happy with the tax rate...then they could withhold their taxes from congress until congress got the message.

Bullshit. Congress would not be a separate entity, regardless how your imagination conjures this. They are the administrators of the government shopping mall, not an independent store located therein. There could be no mechanism that says, "I want to fund the Dept. of Education, but not Congress or the IRS that does the collection for it."

Basically, the less that the government does...the stronger the case for lowering the tax rate.

And just who, precisely, would be making that "stronger" case? You already said, "People would have to pay taxes...but they would be able to withhold their taxes from every single government organization except for one." Whoever made that decision is the same entity that would make the decision regarding the overall tax rate...and you have already established that it is not the individual taxpayer. And once again, even that doesn't matter, since you haven't even touched on the government's ability to levy invisible, hidden, inflationary taxes through currency debasement...which no individual taxpayer could ever have a hand in allocating.

[ILUVRP]

i get tired of the media saying how much taxes bussiness pays , when i buy a big mac i pay 9% sales tax in az , also everyone knows that mcdonalds already has their tax pluged into the price , so who is really paying the tax , its not mcdonalds or any other business , their taxes is in the price of the goods/services.

people pay the taxes in america , i wonder if there were a tariff tax would the big mac price go down , i doubt it.

[Xerographica]

I think a significant portion of people will do what there told. People are easily convinced. Think Jingoism. I see government advertise quite a bit.

People are easily convinced? What about Noah and the Ark? What about me trying to convince people that pragmatarianism is a good idea? Admittedly...I'm probably the worst salesperson ever...but we need to give the skeptics, the doubters, the non-believers the freedom to withhold their taxes from the government organizations that are barking up the wrong tree. There's always going to be the first person who has the nagging feeling that throwing virgins into volcanoes is nothing but the waste of a perfectly good virgin. That's why progress absolutely depends on tolerance.

Still theres the problem of implementation. No easy feat. Even if you convince enough voters, there will be quite a lot of resistance from those who want to retain there power. I just read a story a woman sent to jail for committing charity.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Her-Driveway.

But directly allocating your taxes would be optional. Are congresspeople going to publicly admit that many...most...taxpayers would choose this option?

I don't think that's a good analogy nonprofit organizations don't have a central bank to print money and they can't print there own. Government can and will. what's QE3 at 30 or 40 billion a month printed

How would a pragmatarian system work if the EPA had its own printing press? Why would the EPA bother trying to convince taxpayers of its efficiency/effectiveness/necessity? It wouldn't. Therefore, pragmatarianism is taxpayers actually having the power of the purse in their hands. Will taxpayers give their taxes to the Dept of Treasury? Probably. Even if the Dept of Treasury just gives truckloads of cash to the EPA? Probably not. And if nobody gives their taxes to the Dept of Treasury...then that's it for the Dept of Treasury.

Not all the money is in taxpayers hands. A lot is held by banks and a lot is held by other countries. I don't think those holdings are being taxed. To your question no I would not.

Yeah, I wouldn't give my taxes to a bankrupt government organization. I don't think most taxpayers would either. Knowing this would certainly influence the behavior of government organizations.

I could foresee a big bubble in government departments advertising against each other. You think you get sick of poitical ads just wait till gov. competes for your money.

The thought of government organizations not competing for my money sickens me enough to advocate for tax choice. Without persuasion there's no information. Whether the information provided is any good...will be, and should be, the subject of much debate.

[Xerographica]

Easy;

Garunteed income streams garner complacency. It's that simple. If the income is not garunteed, people do everything they can (quality and better prices) to keep the revenue going.

If you believe otherwise you are not paying attention to the behaviors of your fellow man/woman.

Taxpayers will have to pay taxes...but that in no way shape or form guarantees that a government organization will receive any taxes.

[Xerographica]

Use history as your guide, and you tell me. You already said that all entities, public and private, are profit-maximizing. In the case of government say "revenue-maximizing" to be accurate.

Bullshit. Congress would not be a separate entity, regardless how your imagination conjures this. They are the administrators of the government shopping mall, not an independent store located therein. There could be no mechanism that says, "I want to fund the Dept. of Education, but not Congress or the IRS that does the collection for it."

So who would determine how much money congress receives? Congress itself? Naw. People would be able to choose whether or not they give their taxes to congress, the IRS, the Treasury Dept, the Dept of Ed. or any other government organization.

In terms of granularity though...anybody's guess is as good as mine. Would people want to give their taxes to specific congresspeople? I can't imagine why they shouldn't be allowed to.

[Steven Douglas]

So who would determine how much money congress receives? Congress itself? Naw. People would be able to choose whether or not they give their taxes to congress, the IRS, the Treasury Dept, the Dept of Ed. or any other government organization.

Did what I wrote before just not compute? You're going around in circles, ignoring what I already wrote and reasserting ad nauseam what was already addressed.

Congress would not, COULD NOT, be a separate entity, regardless how your imagination conjures this. They are the administrators of the government shopping mall, not an independent store located therein. There could be no mechanism that says, "I want to fund the Dept. of Education, but not Congress or the IRS that does the collection for it.

Let's try to roll with your strange perception of how government is organized (and I can't believe I'm wasting time with this):

What if everyone said, "100% Funding to The Department of Education ONLY". So now we have zero funding to Congress, the IRS, the Treasury Dept., or any other government branch or organization. Do you think the Department of Education has an autonomous collection arm of its own? OR, is it possible, mayhaps, that the Treasury Dept., and all its ARMED ENFORCEMENT, which was established by what must be a functioning Congress, would do all the collecting for the Department of Education?

It's like you're going into a store, and saying, "I want to buy THIS product, but I don't want to pay for your lights, rents, employee salaries, management, or anything else. And I certainly don't want to pay for any accountants or lawyers on your staff. They can all go to hell, because I just want this product."

And you honestly think that you can discuss this in economics terms?

Let's magically make that happen. ::: POOF! ::: Done. Now who do you pay? And where the hell did all the support staff go? And where did that product that you wanted go anyway? And when I refuse to pay even them, does the Dept. of Education get its own collection and enforcement arm? Because without Congress or any other branch of government --Executive, Legislative or Judicial--who is there to force me to pay ANYTHING to ANYONE? The Department of Education must operate as an autonomous entity, with branches of its own, including a military, police forces, courts, treasury, etc., of its own...which brings us back, full circle, to How Is Government Organized, Anyway?

In economics terms it is easy to see the flaws in your proposal, but I think the reason why you don't want to think of this in political terms is that you lack the most basic grasp of how governments--any government--works.

[Xerographica]

Do you think the Department of Education has an autonomous collection arm of its own?

Oh noes...the Dept of Education doesn't collect taxes on its own...pragmatarianism is a fail! Really? Seriously?

In economics terms it is easy to see the flaws in your proposal, but I think the reason why you don't want to think of this in political terms is that you lack the most basic grasp of how governments--any government--works.

The Dept of Education not collecting taxes is the fatal flaw in my proposal? LOL

Yeah...the Dept of Education does not currently collect taxes...duh. But in a pragmatarian system it would...just like all the organizations in the private sector. And feel free to make me laugh some more by trying to argue why it would be so very impossible for the Dept of Education to collect taxes.

[Steven Douglas]

Oh noes...the Dept of Education doesn't collect taxes on its own...pragmatarianism is a fail! Really? Seriously?

The Dept of Education not collecting taxes is the fatal flaw in my proposal? LOL

Yeah...the Dept of Education does not currently collect taxes...duh. But in a pragmatarian system it would...just like all the organizations in the private sector. And feel free to make me laugh some more by trying to argue why it would be so very impossible for the Dept of Education to collect taxes.

I don't think I'm making you "laugh some more", so much as think to begin with. Now you're making an ad hoc repair to your theory/proposal by suggesting that the Department of Education would indeed acquire its own collection arm, enforcement arm, court system, etc., all part of the Department of Education -- which really means that you have not thought this through at all.