Progressive income tax is the main driver of socialism.

[Swordsmyth]

If that person is in a position to vote himself the wealth of others, he's going to do so, regardless of the current distribution of burdens.

...which is the point: unequal burdens are an effect, not a cause, of socialism.

If the burden is distributed unequally then it becomes easier to profit by voting for more taxes and spending.
It does encourage the growth of socialism.

No, it very obviously wouldn't.

An excise tax doesn't magically cause all prices to increase equally.

It doesn't have to.

The prices of certain goods (preferred by certain people) will increase more than the prices of other goods (preferred by other people).

Which is why the taxes should be placed on many different items and preferably on items commonly used by everyone.

It's also up in the air as to how the burden will be divided between firms, or between firms and consumers.

The firms that produce the products will all be taxed at the same rate, the division of the burden between the firms and the customers is up to them just as avoiding or reducing consumption of the taxed products is up to each customer.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the burden is distributed unequally then it becomes easier to profit by voting for more taxes and spending.
It does encourage the growth of socialism.

Why...?

It doesn't have to.

Which is why the taxes should be placed on many different items and preferably on items commonly used by everyone.

The firms that produce the products will all be taxed at the same rate, the division of the burden between the firms and the customers is up to them just as avoiding or reducing consumption of the taxed products is up to each customer.

That's not going to lead to an equal distribution of the tax burden.

It might be fairly equal, more so than a progressive income tax, but that's all.

The price increase will not be exactly the same for every good/service.

Relative prices will change and that will have different effects on different people.

...and then there's the unequal distribution of benefits, as I mentioned earlier.

The only way to do what you're trying to do is a capitation tax.

...but then there's the diminishing marginal utility of money.

The perfectly equal distribution of burdens and benefits is impossible in practice (and also unimportant).

[Swordsmyth]

Why...?

I already explained that it creates a greater incentive.

That's not going to lead to an equal distribution of the tax burden.

It might be fairly equal, more so than a progressive income tax, but that's all.

The price increase will not be exactly the same for every good/service.

Relative prices will change and that will have different effects on different people.

...and then there's the unequal distribution of benefits, as I mentioned earlier.

The only way to do what you're trying to do is a capitation tax.

...but then there's the diminishing marginal utility of money.

The perfectly equal distribution of burdens and benefits is impossible in practice (and also unimportant).

I already said it is as close to equal as possible but getting as close as possible is important.

[r3volution 3.0]

I already explained that it creates a greater incentive.

You made various nonsensical assertions.

What you continue to do is confuse cause and effect.

If the majority can vote themselves welfare, and change the tax law, it makes no difference what the tax law is at T1.

You should be focusing on why the majority can do that in the first place: why the political system allows that.

I already said it is as close to equal as possible but getting as close as possible is important.

If you're now acknowledging that it isn't going to result in an equal distribution of the burden, good.

So, what of this equality before the law business?

[Swordsmyth]

You made various nonsensical assertions.

What you continue to do is confuse cause and effect.

If the majority can vote themselves welfare, and change the tax law, it makes no difference what the tax law is at T1.

You should be focusing on why the majority can do that in the first place: why the political system allows that.

You are being willfully blind.

If you're now acknowledging that it isn't going to result in an equal distribution of the burden, good.

So, what of this equality before the law business?

Equality before the law is not offended, anyone who manufactures an item pays the tax when they sell it, it doesn't matter who they are or who they know or who their ancestors were.

Equality before the law never meant absolute equality in all facets of life, just that if one person did a thing they would be treated the same as any other person who did that thing,

[r3volution 3.0]

Equality before the law is not offended, anyone who manufactures an item pays the tax when they sell it, it doesn't matter who they are or who they know or who their ancestors were.

Equality before the law never meant absolute equality in all facets of life, just that if one person did a thing they would be treated the same as any other person who did that thing,

So, if a person who earns more than $X is taxed at the same rate as anyone else who earns more than $X...?

You see the conceptual problem?

[Swordsmyth]

So, if a person who earns more than $X is taxed the same rate as anyone else who earns more than $X...?

You see the conceptual problem?

I never said equal distribution of the tax burden was mandated by equality before the law, I just said that it was the best policy and that failing to implement it isn't just or fair and encourages socialism.

[Madison320]

As Occam said, that's because it is an improvement.

Less aggression is better than more aggression.

I find it difficult to understand how this could be a controversial proposition among libertarians.

You don't think laws should be applied to everyone? Do you think the equal protection principle is wrong? As I said earlier the logical conclusion of not having equal protection is that everyone has their own set of laws.

[r3volution 3.0]

You don't think laws should be applied to everyone? Do you think the equal protection principle is wrong?

It's secondary to the non-aggression principle.

You appreciate that, in any state (you are a minarchist IIRC), costs and benefits will be unequally distributed?

The state means the socialization of security.

As I said earlier the logical conclusion of not having equal protection is that everyone has their own set of laws.

There's no reason to go to that conclusion (if that even is the conclusion).

My principle, for what it's worth, is very simple; less aggression is better than more aggression (always and without exception).

What most people mean and have historically meant by "equality before the law" isn't a perfectly equal distrbituion of taxes/benefits.

It's the idea that everyone ought to have due process and the same punishments for the same crimes.

E.G. The nobleman gets the same kind of trial and, if convicted, punishment, as the commoner for shooting somebody.

That I certainly favor: not because I worship at the altar of equality, but because I worship at the altar of non-aggression.

Shooting people (without justification, ex hypothesi) is wrong, and those who do it ought to be punished: whoever they are.

But, if in some situation it would reduce the total incidence of aggression to treat different classes of people differently, I'd be fine with that too.

The goal is a world of less misery, not one of equally distributed misery.

[kfarnan]

Don't contract with them. They only see you if you work in their system.

[Madison320]

My principle, for what it's worth, is very simple; less aggression is better than more aggression (always and without exception).

Yeah, but that's kind of a vague concept. If 10 people are living on an island and 9 of them vote to make the 10th guy pay all the taxes is that "less aggression" compared to all 10 people having to pay a smaller amount? You could argue that since only one guy is getting screwed it's better than all ten (obviously I wouldn't make that argument).

So what you are saying is that it would be "more aggression" if we let certain groups of people go for murder, but it would be "less aggression" if we let certain groups go for drug charges. And I'm assuming you'd have different ways of calculating the total amount of aggression for taxes and benefits correct? The problem that I see is that all of those things are laws, taxes and benefits are still laws. If you are going to have different rules for each law you might as well throw all the laws out the window. Which would probably be fine if you're an anarchist but I didn't think you were.

Anyway I think anytime you start unevenly enforcing laws it's always going to lead to more aggression in the long run even if it reduces it the short run.

And then there's the tax laws which are by far the worst one to have uneven enforcement for obvious reasons.

I've heard Walter Williams say many times that if he had to add one amendment to the constitution it would be that all laws would apply to everyone. So if a corn farmer was receiving subsidies we'd all be allowed to get those subsidies.

[Madison320]

My principle, for what it's worth, is very simple; less aggression is better than more aggression (always and without exception).

I'll ask again in a different way:

According to your logic:

Moving from a 30% flat tax to a reduction to 15% for half the population would be less aggression, therefore better.

Moving from a 15% flat tax to an increase to 30% for half the population would be more aggression, therefore worse.

But that about:

Moving from a 30% flat tax to a tax of 40% for half and 20% for half?

Moving from a 30% flat tax to 0% for the vast majority and 90% for a few?

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah, but that's kind of a vague concept. If 10 people are living on an island and 9 of them vote to make the 10th guy pay all the taxes is that "less aggression" compared to all 10 people having to pay a smaller amount?

If the total tax burden is the same in both cases, then it's a wash.

You could argue that since only one guy is getting screwed it's better than all ten (obviously I wouldn't make that argument).

It's about the total "amount" of aggression, not the number of victims.

Better a $9 tax burden paid by 1 guy than a $10 tax burden divided among 10 guys.

or

Better a $9 tax burden divided among 10 guys than a $10 tax burden paid by 1 guy.

So what you are saying is that it would be "more aggression" if we let certain groups of people go for murder, but it would be "less aggression" if we let certain groups go for drug charges.

I don't follow.

And I'm assuming you'd have different ways of calculating the total amount of aggression for taxes and benefits correct?

The concept "total amount of aggression" entails interpersonal utility comparisons, which are strictly impossible, because value is ordinal not cardinal. So, in practice, doing these calculations requires use of a proxy (like money prices), just as with economic metrics like GDP. If, by reference to money prices, we determine that Policy A will cause $1M worth of aggression (perhaps $1M in cash taken from taxpayers), while preventing $2 million worth of aggression (perhaps the market value of the property which otherwise would have been destroyed by vandals), we can reasonably conclude that Policy A reduces the "total amount of aggression," even though that concept is problematic at a theoretical level.

The problem that I see is that all of those things are laws, taxes and benefits are still laws. If you are going to have different rules for each law you might as well throw all the laws out the window. Which would probably be fine if you're an anarchist but I didn't think you were.

Anyway I think anytime you start unevenly enforcing laws it's always going to lead to more aggression in the long run even if it reduces it the short run.

And then there's the tax laws which are by far the worst one to have uneven enforcement for obvious reasons.

I've heard Walter Williams say many times that if he had to add one amendment to the constitution it would be that all laws would apply to everyone. So if a corn farmer was receiving subsidies we'd all be allowed to get those subsidies.

See Post #66.

The concept of legal equality isn't as simple as it may first appear.

Any outcome (e.g. unequal distribution of a burden/benefit) can be achieved through a law which applies equally to everyone.

"Each person named Madison320 shall buy 1 Ferrari for each person named r3volution 3.0."

That law applies equally to everyone: to "each person" with our names, not just to us.

...and yet it hardly gives the kind of equal outcome that you're aiming for.

I'll ask again in a different way:

According to your logic:

Moving from a 30% flat tax to a reduction to 15% for half the population would be less aggression, therefore better.

Yes, because the total tax burden is less.

Moving from a 15% flat tax to an increase to 30% for half the population would be more aggression, therefore worse.

Yes, because the total tax burden is more.

But that about:

Moving from a 30% flat tax to a tax of 40% for half and 20% for half?

That depends on whether the total tax burden has increased (not enough information to tell).

Moving from a 30% flat tax to 0% for the vast majority and 90% for a few?

Same as above

[Republicanguy]

Some here are very deluded on the idea of have no taxes. Honestly, I am not surprised there is fringe movement. This is being immature, immature adults not wanting to be responsible for the cost of society. Or the environment.

I can imagine, the reality of this idea, society would be crumble.

[Krugminator2]

Some here are very deluded on the idea of have no taxes. Honestly, I am not surprised there is fringe movement. This is being immature, immature adults not wanting to be responsible for the cost of society. Or the environment.

I can imagine, the reality of this idea, society would be crumble.

I think the most odious part about you is not just that your freeload. I HATE that. But even worse you angrily demand other people to pay for you to freeload and then demonize them for not giving you enough. You seem to think you are owed a lot for just having a pulse and not having the innate desire to work "unsocial hours". It is insanity. In your bizarro world, the bad people are the people who have sacrificed the most and taken the most risk and the good people are those who do nothing but loaf around. In your world, the least ambitious seem to be the most virtuous. That is literally what I take from your posts.

[Republicanguy]

No, those are who genuinely successful is because of welfare family, not society as such. Welfare for the poor is a pittance compared to the wrong doing of corporations and lack of taxes.

I may live in a strange world, but I am not wrong on many points that left wing people make.

As for Virtuous people, they exist everywhere, don't deny that.

Ron Paul, has never ever believe that a welfare state exists to help, only charity. I never understood that about him, more than ten years ago, his policy would of left me in a bad situation and my family, especially the situation with housing. As there none in the US. People only have their extended family, or charity, that doesn't work.

This is why I am on the left wing side of politics, from people who have no understand of the downside life or how big business, or wealthy people, especially wealthy, they look after their own. This is what Paul, never understood about Google, we need more googles, he said in 2008. How wrong he was on the business structure of how they behave.

Yang is worth a try.

[Swordsmyth]

No, those are who genuinely successful is because of welfare family, not society as such. Welfare for the poor is a pittance compared to the wrong doing of corporations and lack of taxes.

I may live in a strange world, but I am not wrong on many points that left wing people make.

As for Virtuous people, they exist everywhere, don't deny that.

Ron Paul, has never ever believe that a welfare state exists to help, only charity. I never understood that about him, more than ten years ago, his policy would of left me in a bad situation and my family, especially the situation with housing. As there none in the US. People only have their extended family, or charity, that doesn't work.

This is why I am on the left wing side of politics, from people who have no understand of the downside life or how big business, or wealthy people, especially wealthy, they look after their own. This is what Paul, never understood about Google, we need more googles, he said in 2008. How wrong he was on the business structure of how they behave.

Yang is worth a try.

Get a job, parasite.

[Madison320]

The concept of legal equality isn't as simple as it may first appear.

Any outcome (e.g. unequal distribution of a burden/benefit) can be achieved through a law which applies equally to everyone.

"Each person named Madison320 shall buy 1 Ferrari for each person named r3volution 3.0."

That law applies equally to everyone: to "each person" with our names, not just to us.

The minute you injected a specific person it no longer applies to everyone.

[Swordsmyth]

The minute you injected a specific person it no longer applies to everyone.

He is either crazy or just trolling.