Anyone who hates the concept of taxes should be barred from voting. Clearly, you’re too stupid to be allowed to participate.
I don’t hate the concept of taxes. I hate the concept of my taxes not actually going back into the community I live in and instead being used to line pockets and blow up middle eastern people.
I’ll take that deal, but only if I’m also relieved from paying taxes.
You can be relieved of taxes as long as you’re barred from using anything paid for with taxes. No FDA regulations for you!
Works for me! As long as Amazon will still deliver to my address, you can find me homesteading at my Uncle Ted cabin sending virtual mailbombs to fiat currency enthusiasts. Don’t come visit without an appointment though or you’ll be leaving in a box.
The FBI has more guns than you lol
I didn’t do anything wrong though. No vote, no taxes, no use of publicly funded infrastructure, that was the deal. Amazon is a private company, they do pay taxes, so they can use the roads on my behalf.
That’s the fun thing though, taxes pay for the legal system that protects you from both the state and other people. So you don’t get that either. Anyone including the FBI can roll up and smoke your ass and there’s nothing you can do about it.
And I dunno what a virtual mailbomb is, but it sounds like something the FBI would care enough to stop.
And I dunno what a virtual mailbomb is, but it sounds like something the FBI would care enough to stop.
It’s just a funny word I made up for inconvenient free speech. Because it is my experience that right (or wrong, depending on your perspective) words at the right time can literally make a person blow up LOL
We need to find an argument, which is convincing to billionaires, that the world will be better for them if they and all other billionaires pay their full share of taxes.
Government can be a win for the individual, if all the other individuals are also making the same sacrifice.
So like if Joe gets taxed some of his money and he’s the only one, then Joe loses because Joe’s money can’t serve him any better being spent by someone else.
But if Joe gets taxed some of his money and so does everyone else who Joe lives with, then Joe can win by this because the effect of the commonwealth generated can benefit him more than the money would have in his own account.
Like, I’m happy to pay taxes in order to live in a society of laws and security and free open markets where I can trade with people to get things I can’t provide myself.
By giving up that 10% of my money, I’m gaining all this other wealth in the form of a stable society.
So we need to articulate how the global benefits of those billionaires’ tax money being pooled and spent on commonwealth, is better even for the billionaires than if they’d each individually kept that money.
Am I being clear here? I feel like I’m not.
Like if we went after Elon Musk and only Elon Musk for back taxes, then Elon Musk loses.
But if we go after all the billionaires for their back taxes, then the billionaires can win too, by benefitting from the overall societal improvements.
And so long as the other billionaires are also taking financial hits, any given billionaire isn’t slipping in their billionaire-vs-billionaire game of status. They’re all losing money equally across the board.
The reason to go looking for an argument that takes the billionaires’ benefits into account, is that billionaires are the only ones who can make this tax thing happen. Their influence is too great to do it against their will.
So we need to articulate how the global benefits of those billionaires’ tax money being pooled and spent on commonwealth, is better even for the billionaires than if they’d each individually kept that money.
If they pay their taxes we don’t feed them to pigs. How’s that for a benefit?
That’s plan B, we can’t lead with that. But believe me, it is on the table.
I can’t remember who suggested it, but they framed the question differently around taxing billionaires.
Instead of making it a negative thing, they said it should be framed as a great honour to pay these “special” taxes. The billionaire tax should be kept separately from all other taxes, it should be pooled into a limited fund that they own, and should be distributed to areas where they want it to make a real impact. They should then be given additional benefits in society based on the impact generated by their fund. It notes that capitalism isn’t necessarily about accumulation of wealth, but profit, and that wealth should be taxed.
For example, if Elon Musk were taxed 50% as a wealth tax, he is personally invited to the White House to discuss his plans with the tax authorities and the president. He gets to attend specific meetings to see where his money has gone (let’s say to hospitals), and gets public praise for pumping several billion into public healthcare initiatives. Wealth is reframed into an opportunity to help society, whereas capitalism pushes profit.
While I don’t really like the idea of billionaires choosing where taxes go, if improvements are measured on societal impact it’s still better than before where they just hoard wealth.
I think that billionaires gain their wealth by gaming the system, and it seems foolish to expect them to not continue to game any new system that they’re a part of. Especially given the degree of control you’re suggesting.
Idk, maybe it could work. Seems like there’s a lot that hinges on billionaires doing the right thing, and I’m skeptical that they would.
In many ways, it is an obscene amount of control, and I don’t disagree that this degree of wealth isn’t ethical - even examples like Taylor Swift aren’t from “hard work”, but rather backroom deals, undercutting other artists, etc.
IMO, the best alternative is going entirely the other way. Tell all billionaires in the US that they are subject to a wealth tax, and attempts to fight it will result in freezing assets, expulsion from the country, executive removal, etc. Drive all billionaires out of the country, and let them set up shop elsewhere (they won’t).
It’s a punishment, though. Perhaps they should be punished, but IMO an easier approach is to say “well done” and to tell them that as long as this money goes somewhere for societal gain it doesn’t really matter if they decide to pump tens of billions into making public roads the best roads in the country, it’s better than them just having that money in a fund somewhere.
Where this will likely get dicey is in ensuring that this money stays in home accounts, and in defining what is taxable wealth, and fighting avoidance. That’s where the system will be gamed, but ultimately it’s different to avoid tax that goes somewhere to avoiding your money being spent by you for public good.
What he could’ve made if there were no taxes? I doubt he’d be making as much if there were no government.
Argentina gutted its tax system and now certain people are making a lot more money. Its just that the state currency is increasingly worthless, as the biggest consumer of notes no longer wants them.
As a libertarian I try to make it clear that free markets can’t exist in the modern world without government activity.
In the prehistoric world, a person with something to sell or trade could mostly do so without interference, because everyone had similar physical power, making robbery more dangerous than it was worth.
But once power structures started accumulating: armies, governments, powerful families, etc, the only way to maintain free trade is via government actively maintaining that secure market space.
So the natural deterrent of coercive economic interaction (get injured when target defends their stuff), got replaced with the artificial deterrent of law enforcement (go to jail when target reports your theft).
Free markets need to be level and fair, and it takes government firepower to counter all the other firepower and level the negotiations out. When people can negotiate without fear of violence reprisal, they can freely enter or not enter whatever set of economic arrangements are best for them.
Free markets mean people can enter the market and do whatever kind of business they please so long as someone else is willing to take that deal. You can’t do that without a large effort to keep the space clear of criminal coercion.
That’s an extremely simplistic view of commerce and human history. Robbery was very common before government. Robbery is still very common, but less so.
Fraud and dangerous products run rampant without government intervention. Basically, without a government to protect you, the likelihood that a mega corp will sell you something that will kill you is super high. Just look at how much regulation has improved auto safety in the last 70 years. And appliance safety, medical safety, travel safety, food safety, etc.
The kind of world that libertarians pine for is the kind of world that would kill them in a month.
Just read bro. You responded to something other than what I said.
I was responding to this:
In the prehistoric world, a person with something to sell or trade could mostly do so without interference, because everyone had similar physical power, making robbery more dangerous than it was worth.
And this:
Free markets mean people can enter the market and do whatever kind of business they please so long as someone else is willing to take that deal.
