A question regarding the fundamental rights of man

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

As you probably know most fools are amused by truth so the presence of your amusement, while probably intended to insulate your opinion in your own mind beyond a need for analysis, actually tells me nothing at all. Also you seem to assume you interpret less than I. My point is that you and the Forefathers can and could have had no real agreement on who the Creator is. Why for example, did they not use the word God. The Creator to you is what you imagine it to be. But we know from monkey studies that they fully and genetically understand fair play, that this sense is inalienable in them. What Creator put it there making it so self evident?

on the contrary, my opinion is the result of analysis, not an excuse from it. as far as my agreeing with the forefathers, they were mainly christians and diests so the vast majority were from some form of theism. christian or diest it does not matter, our "inalienable" rights are objective rather than subjective. in this case the used "creator" in other cases "God" just as today many deists and christians would use the words almost interchangeably. in answer to your last question..."the" creator.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

It should only be $1,000 per person because there must be limits on the size of government. The reason why is kind of complicated and relates to end ranking signals within individuals and the distortion of those signals when expressed relating to public goods. I've been writing an entire essay on this and I won't post it here, but that's the general reason. The fact that the government in its current state has absolutely no limits to its size is very bad.

Defense spending is way out of control and it could certainly be drastically reduced without giving up the fact that no country can pose a threat to the U.S. I think defense spending of about $40 billion a year would be adequate, this of course would entail pulling U.S. troops out of foreign countries. I don't think that the U.S. has to have troops at the physical location in order to impose threats on nations in the world that bully and threaten certain democracies.

It is interesting that you brought up the interstate system. I actually believe that this should be sold off to private companies who would then determine how this is to be paid for. The highways are a supply of a good just like anything else and the demand for this good is obviously exceeding the supply because the link between payment and consumption is broken. I think its paid for by gas taxes in my state, California but this does not mean that an equilibrium price is met. If the roads were turned over to a private company that company would be held accountable for traffic jams which would respond a lot better to market signals than the government does. The highway system is one of the only areas where I believe it should be a government regulated monopoly.

As for corporations, they consist of individuals so those individuals in the corporation should be allowed to partake in public goods. If the corporation or anyone imposes a cost on government then they should pay for that cost. For instance if it costs the government money to maintain public records regarding private ownership of property then the corporation that imposes that cost should pay for it. In other words the government could still sell services in certain areas as it does today.

1. Please go and find out what the current US Budget is. (for those that are not into actual research the answer is $2.2 trillion for 2005)

2. If you can find a way to make the country work with the small fraction (13%) of that budget that you are proposing ($300 billion), you should put it in a book and run for office.

3. How do you tax the prisoners, mentally handicapped, laid off workers, injured on the job and on disability etc.... with $1K being the rule (even though they were right when saying it would be at least $3k per head on this kind of a plan.)

4. How many companies are you going to put out of business by forcing them to raise minimum wage to at least $12/hr so that the employees can afford have a home, vehicle (or annual bus fare) and food?

1. The current budget is irrelevent. The scope of government should never be beyond the scope of what is allowable by our rights as human beings.

2. I don't have to, the country has worked with a small fraction of today's budget already in the past. Granted the population has grown since then but the size of government has grown disporportionally in relation to population growth in real dollars. The government today is wealthier than at any time in history.

3. Already been addressed, private charities. Taxpayers who are currently shelling out millions would probably be more than happy to pay a disabled person's head tax for they would become wealthier than ever(as everyone else would be, in fact a head tax would insure that society as a whole would become unimaginably wealthier). As for prisoners, at the time of their imprisonment their head tax money would be deducted from whatever money was confiscated from them. If they serve 30 years then they pay $30,000. If some prisoners did not have money at the time of their imprisonment then the other wealthier prisoners would make up the difference just because its unlikely a private charity would pay a prisoner's head tax.

4. I don't see how this is much different than point 3. If someone cannot pay their head tax they go to a charity and indicate that they are not able to pay, the charity either loans them money or simply pays their tax. In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the population which is the whole idea.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

It should only be $1,000 per person because there must be limits on the size of government. The reason why is kind of complicated and relates to end ranking signals within individuals and the distortion of those signals when expressed relating to public goods. I've been writing an entire essay on this and I won't post it here, but that's the general reason. The fact that the government in its current state has absolutely no limits to its size is very bad.

Defense spending is way out of control and it could certainly be drastically reduced without giving up the fact that no country can pose a threat to the U.S. I think defense spending of about $40 billion a year would be adequate, this of course would entail pulling U.S. troops out of foreign countries. I don't think that the U.S. has to have troops at the physical location in order to impose threats on nations in the world that bully and threaten certain democracies.

It is interesting that you brought up the interstate system. I actually believe that this should be sold off to private companies who would then determine how this is to be paid for. The highways are a supply of a good just like anything else and the demand for this good is obviously exceeding the supply because the link between payment and consumption is broken. I think its paid for by gas taxes in my state, California but this does not mean that an equilibrium price is met. If the roads were turned over to a private company that company would be held accountable for traffic jams which would respond a lot better to market signals than the government does. The highway system is one of the only areas where I believe it should be a government regulated monopoly.

As for corporations, they consist of individuals so those individuals in the corporation should be allowed to partake in public goods. If the corporation or anyone imposes a cost on government then they should pay for that cost. For instance if it costs the government money to maintain public records regarding private ownership of property then the corporation that imposes that cost should pay for it. In other words the government could still sell services in certain areas as it does today.

1. Please go and find out what the current US Budget is. (for those that are not into actual research the answer is $2.2 trillion for 2005)

2. If you can find a way to make the country work with the small fraction (13%) of that budget that you are proposing ($300 billion), you should put it in a book and run for office.

3. How do you tax the prisoners, mentally handicapped, laid off workers, injured on the job and on disability etc.... with $1K being the rule (even though they were right when saying it would be at least $3k per head on this kind of a plan.)

4. How many companies are you going to put out of business by forcing them to raise minimum wage to at least $12/hr so that the employees can afford have a home, vehicle (or annual bus fare) and food?

1. The current budget is irrelevent. The scope of government should never be beyond the scope of what is allowable by our rights as human beings.

2. I don't have to, the country has worked with a small fraction of today's budget already in the past. Granted the population has grown since then but the size of government has grown disporportionally in relation to population growth in real dollars. The government today is wealthier than at any time in history.

3. Already been addressed, private charities. Taxpayers who are currently shelling out millions would probably be more than happy to pay a disabled person's head tax for they would become wealthier than ever(as everyone else would be, in fact a head tax would insure that society as a whole would become unimaginably wealthier). As for prisoners, at the time of their imprisonment their head tax money would be deducted from whatever money was confiscated from them. If they serve 30 years then they pay $30,000. If some prisoners did not have money at the time of their imprisonment then the other wealthier prisoners would make up the difference just because its unlikely a private charity would pay a prisoner's head tax.

4. I don't see how this is much different than point 3. If someone cannot pay their head tax they go to a charity and indicate that they are not able to pay, the charity either loans them money or simply pays their tax. In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the population which is the whole idea.

This isn't a personal attack but you are very unrealistic in what can be done with such a small budget and your faith in people paying $1K - 3K a head in taxes and also paying out to charities. Right now the major reason most (not all) people give to charities is because of the tax break not for this "warm fuzzy economics" theory of yours. It's also real easy to say "Government, you should only spend 13 cents on the current budget dollar and keep the country running." Like I have said though, put it in writting and don't just say "it's broke". If it works financially, the country will back you or at least your plan.

In regards to your statement "In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the Population which is the whole idea." You are definately in the dark there. Have you any idea what it takes for a minimum wage family to have a home/apartment, 1 vehicle, food, insurance, utilities and a minimal social life? You can't count on the "good nature" of others for a countries budget.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

It should only be $1,000 per person because there must be limits on the size of government. The reason why is kind of complicated and relates to end ranking signals within individuals and the distortion of those signals when expressed relating to public goods. I've been writing an entire essay on this and I won't post it here, but that's the general reason. The fact that the government in its current state has absolutely no limits to its size is very bad.

Defense spending is way out of control and it could certainly be drastically reduced without giving up the fact that no country can pose a threat to the U.S. I think defense spending of about $40 billion a year would be adequate, this of course would entail pulling U.S. troops out of foreign countries. I don't think that the U.S. has to have troops at the physical location in order to impose threats on nations in the world that bully and threaten certain democracies.

It is interesting that you brought up the interstate system. I actually believe that this should be sold off to private companies who would then determine how this is to be paid for. The highways are a supply of a good just like anything else and the demand for this good is obviously exceeding the supply because the link between payment and consumption is broken. I think its paid for by gas taxes in my state, California but this does not mean that an equilibrium price is met. If the roads were turned over to a private company that company would be held accountable for traffic jams which would respond a lot better to market signals than the government does. The highway system is one of the only areas where I believe it should be a government regulated monopoly.

As for corporations, they consist of individuals so those individuals in the corporation should be allowed to partake in public goods. If the corporation or anyone imposes a cost on government then they should pay for that cost. For instance if it costs the government money to maintain public records regarding private ownership of property then the corporation that imposes that cost should pay for it. In other words the government could still sell services in certain areas as it does today.

1. Please go and find out what the current US Budget is. (for those that are not into actual research the answer is $2.2 trillion for 2005)

2. If you can find a way to make the country work with the small fraction (13%) of that budget that you are proposing ($300 billion), you should put it in a book and run for office.

3. How do you tax the prisoners, mentally handicapped, laid off workers, injured on the job and on disability etc.... with $1K being the rule (even though they were right when saying it would be at least $3k per head on this kind of a plan.)

4. How many companies are you going to put out of business by forcing them to raise minimum wage to at least $12/hr so that the employees can afford have a home, vehicle (or annual bus fare) and food?

1. The current budget is irrelevent. The scope of government should never be beyond the scope of what is allowable by our rights as human beings.

2. I don't have to, the country has worked with a small fraction of today's budget already in the past. Granted the population has grown since then but the size of government has grown disporportionally in relation to population growth in real dollars. The government today is wealthier than at any time in history.

3. Already been addressed, private charities. Taxpayers who are currently shelling out millions would probably be more than happy to pay a disabled person's head tax for they would become wealthier than ever(as everyone else would be, in fact a head tax would insure that society as a whole would become unimaginably wealthier). As for prisoners, at the time of their imprisonment their head tax money would be deducted from whatever money was confiscated from them. If they serve 30 years then they pay $30,000. If some prisoners did not have money at the time of their imprisonment then the other wealthier prisoners would make up the difference just because its unlikely a private charity would pay a prisoner's head tax.

4. I don't see how this is much different than point 3. If someone cannot pay their head tax they go to a charity and indicate that they are not able to pay, the charity either loans them money or simply pays their tax. In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the population which is the whole idea.

This isn't a personal attack but you are very unrealistic in what can be done with such a small budget and your faith in people paying $1K - 3K a head in taxes and also paying out to charities. Right now the major reason most (not all) people give to charities is because of the tax break not for this "warm fuzzy economics" theory of yours. It's also real easy to say "Government, you should only spend 13 cents on the current budget dollar and keep the country running." Like I have said though, put it in writting and don't just say "it's broke". If it works financially, the country will back you or at least your plan.

In regards to your statement "In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the Population which is the whole idea." You are definately in the dark there. Have you any idea what it takes for a minimum wage family to have a home/apartment, 1 vehicle, food, insurance, utilities and a minimal social life? You can't count on the "good nature" of others for a countries budget.

Under the head tax FICA would end which would put payroll taxes back into the pockets of low income earners. This would automatically give them a 7.5% boost and some economists claim it would actually boost their paychecks by 15% since these earners actually pay the portion that is supposedly paid by their employers. That would probably give them more than enough to pay the head tax. On a paltry salary of $6,700 a year the head tax would already be mitigated by the lack of FICA.

If you think that donations to private charity will only be made out of artificial government incentives then I'm sorry, you have a severe lack of faith in your common man. On the contrary the enormous amount of wealth generated by the head tax accross all income levels will enable people to donate more than ever to private charities.

The problem with your proposal is that everyone has a different idea of government, under my idea of government the head tax would work without a doubt. Under Fred's, Suzy's or Tom's idea of government the head tax may not even be able to begin to pay for government. Obviously the head tax would force the government to shrink, to me this is a good thing. Others believe government should be larger. In any event, however large one believe's government should be it should be a fixed size and this is a conclusion I have reached through deductive logic. One of the only ways to do this is to get government off the percentage system, so that it is no longer taking a percentage of the economy but rather has a fixed overall cost that is paid yearly. The head tax is certainly one of the best ways to achieve this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

As you probably know most fools are amused by truth so the presence of your amusement, while probably intended to insulate your opinion in your own mind beyond a need for analysis, actually tells me nothing at all. Also you seem to assume you interpret less than I. My point is that you and the Forefathers can and could have had no real agreement on who the Creator is. Why for example, did they not use the word God. The Creator to you is what you imagine it to be. But we know from monkey studies that they fully and genetically understand fair play, that this sense is inalienable in them. What Creator put it there making it so self evident?

on the contrary, my opinion is the result of analysis, not an excuse from it. as far as my agreeing with the forefathers, they were mainly christians and diests so the vast majority were from some form of theism. christian or diest it does not matter, our "inalienable" rights are objective rather than subjective. in this case the used "creator" in other cases "God" just as today many deists and christians would use the words almost interchangeably. in answer to your last question..."the" creator.

If you are going to claim analysis you have to show it. I said that people have differing notions of who the creator is and that probably explains the use of the more general term over the use of the word God who is god to Christians. The fact that the Founding Fathers were theists or diest of Christians or Masons or Rosecrucians or god knows what else means they all had differing notions of who the creator is, exactly as I said. They mention some rights they felt were among those innalienable but didn't spell them all out because doubtless they would not agree on all of each others opinion. They all had a differeing notion of who the creator is so how could they agree on the rights. What they did have in common and said so specifically is that the presence of those unspecified rights is self evident. Because you are stuck with the belief in a Creator of your own imagining, you imagine that creator as the source. But clearly to a rational mind, one not biased by religious docrtine or a limited notion of Creator, it is evolution that created those monkeys and gave them a sense of fair play. All that means is that the impression, the feeling that rights are self evident, results from nothing more than a genetic program. The wonderful and wonderous thing about that, however, is that man is at core an animal who is ethical and good and that the Creator and the Created are one and the same. So while all the things that religion claims are true about God are actually true but upside down. Evolution is a mirror of the universe and what evolves evolves as a reflection. When the reflection is perfect you can't tell which is what.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you are going to claim analysis you have to show it. I said that people have differing notions of who the creator is and that probably explains the use of the more general term over the use of the word God who is god to Christians. The fact that the Founding Fathers were theists or diest of Christians or Masons or Rosecrucians or god knows what else means they all had differing notions of who the creator is, exactly as I said. They mention some rights they felt were among those innalienable but didn't spell them all out because doubtless they would not agree on all of each others opinion. They all had a differeing notion of who the creator is so how could they agree on the rights. What they did have in common and said so specifically is that the presence of those unspecified rights is self evident. Because you are stuck with the belief in a Creator of your own imagining, you imagine that creator as the source. But clearly to a rational mind, one not biased by religious docrtine or a limited notion of Creator, it is evolution that created those monkeys and gave them a sense of fair play. All that means is that the impression, the feeling that rights are self evident, results from nothing more than a genetic program. The wonderful and wonderous thing about that, however, is that man is at core an animal who is ethical and good and that the Creator and the Created are one and the same. So while all the things that religion claims are true about God are actually true but upside down. Evolution is a mirror of the universe and what evolves evolves as a reflection. When the reflection is perfect you can't tell which is what.

"creator" no matter from what form of theism is a direct reference to a being(s) that took action to bring about 'creation"... the result of the action of the "creator".

it stands to very simple reasoning that in order to be referred to as "creator" something would in fact have to be created. since the subject in the DoI is human beings who according to it are "endowed by the creator" it is not i who assign our "inalienable rights" to the creator but instead the author(s) of the DoI.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

It should only be $1,000 per person because there must be limits on the size of government. The reason why is kind of complicated and relates to end ranking signals within individuals and the distortion of those signals when expressed relating to public goods. I've been writing an entire essay on this and I won't post it here, but that's the general reason. The fact that the government in its current state has absolutely no limits to its size is very bad.

Defense spending is way out of control and it could certainly be drastically reduced without giving up the fact that no country can pose a threat to the U.S. I think defense spending of about $40 billion a year would be adequate, this of course would entail pulling U.S. troops out of foreign countries. I don't think that the U.S. has to have troops at the physical location in order to impose threats on nations in the world that bully and threaten certain democracies.

It is interesting that you brought up the interstate system. I actually believe that this should be sold off to private companies who would then determine how this is to be paid for. The highways are a supply of a good just like anything else and the demand for this good is obviously exceeding the supply because the link between payment and consumption is broken. I think its paid for by gas taxes in my state, California but this does not mean that an equilibrium price is met. If the roads were turned over to a private company that company would be held accountable for traffic jams which would respond a lot better to market signals than the government does. The highway system is one of the only areas where I believe it should be a government regulated monopoly.

As for corporations, they consist of individuals so those individuals in the corporation should be allowed to partake in public goods. If the corporation or anyone imposes a cost on government then they should pay for that cost. For instance if it costs the government money to maintain public records regarding private ownership of property then the corporation that imposes that cost should pay for it. In other words the government could still sell services in certain areas as it does today.

1. Please go and find out what the current US Budget is. (for those that are not into actual research the answer is $2.2 trillion for 2005)

2. If you can find a way to make the country work with the small fraction (13%) of that budget that you are proposing ($300 billion), you should put it in a book and run for office.

3. How do you tax the prisoners, mentally handicapped, laid off workers, injured on the job and on disability etc.... with $1K being the rule (even though they were right when saying it would be at least $3k per head on this kind of a plan.)

4. How many companies are you going to put out of business by forcing them to raise minimum wage to at least $12/hr so that the employees can afford have a home, vehicle (or annual bus fare) and food?

1. The current budget is irrelevent. The scope of government should never be beyond the scope of what is allowable by our rights as human beings.

2. I don't have to, the country has worked with a small fraction of today's budget already in the past. Granted the population has grown since then but the size of government has grown disporportionally in relation to population growth in real dollars. The government today is wealthier than at any time in history.

3. Already been addressed, private charities. Taxpayers who are currently shelling out millions would probably be more than happy to pay a disabled person's head tax for they would become wealthier than ever(as everyone else would be, in fact a head tax would insure that society as a whole would become unimaginably wealthier). As for prisoners, at the time of their imprisonment their head tax money would be deducted from whatever money was confiscated from them. If they serve 30 years then they pay $30,000. If some prisoners did not have money at the time of their imprisonment then the other wealthier prisoners would make up the difference just because its unlikely a private charity would pay a prisoner's head tax.

4. I don't see how this is much different than point 3. If someone cannot pay their head tax they go to a charity and indicate that they are not able to pay, the charity either loans them money or simply pays their tax. In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the population which is the whole idea.

This isn't a personal attack but you are very unrealistic in what can be done with such a small budget and your faith in people paying $1K - 3K a head in taxes and also paying out to charities. Right now the major reason most (not all) people give to charities is because of the tax break not for this "warm fuzzy economics" theory of yours. It's also real easy to say "Government, you should only spend 13 cents on the current budget dollar and keep the country running." Like I have said though, put it in writting and don't just say "it's broke". If it works financially, the country will back you or at least your plan.

In regards to your statement "In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the Population which is the whole idea." You are definately in the dark there. Have you any idea what it takes for a minimum wage family to have a home/apartment, 1 vehicle, food, insurance, utilities and a minimal social life? You can't count on the "good nature" of others for a countries budget.

Under the head tax FICA would end which would put payroll taxes back into the pockets of low income earners. This would automatically give them a 7.5% boost and some economists claim it would actually boost their paychecks by 15% since these earners actually pay the portion that is supposedly paid by their employers. That would probably give them more than enough to pay the head tax. On a paltry salary of $6,700 a year the head tax would already be mitigated by the lack of FICA.

If you think that donations to private charity will only be made out of artificial government incentives then I'm sorry, you have a severe lack of faith in your common man. On the contrary the enormous amount of wealth generated by the head tax accross all income levels will enable people to donate more than ever to private charities.

The problem with your proposal is that everyone has a different idea of government, under my idea of government the head tax would work without a doubt. Under Fred's, Suzy's or Tom's idea of government the head tax may not even be able to begin to pay for government. Obviously the head tax would force the government to shrink, to me this is a good thing. Others believe government should be larger. In any event, however large one believe's government should be it should be a fixed size and this is a conclusion I have reached through deductive logic. One of the only ways to do this is to get government off the percentage system, so that it is no longer taking a percentage of the economy but rather has a fixed overall cost that is paid yearly. The head tax is certainly one of the best ways to achieve this.

Good luck with your Warm Fuzzy Economics and like I have said a few times now... Create the government you are wanting to run on 13% of it's current budget, put it in writting and then publish it on the web. Take the current budget that you can Download from many sources and re-write it with your proposals.

You are just saying "Guys, make cuts and only spend 300,000,000,000. Have a good day." Show me how this will work and you might be able to sway me. As it stands though, you aren't using "deductive logic", you are using pure guesswork.

 

[Moonbeam]

"creator" no matter from what form of theism is a direct reference to a being(s) that took action to bring about 'creation"... the result of the action of the "creator".

it stands to very simple reasoning that in order to be referred to as "creator" something would in fact have to be created. since the subject in the DoI is human beings who according to it are "endowed by the creator" it is not i who assign our "inalienable rights" to the creator but instead the author(s) of the DoI.[/quote]

You are making the claim that our inalienable rights are objective, but heartsurgeon suggested they are not:

this is getting into the religious realm now.
the definition of "rights" as you are using it is "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

tradition in our sense typically means English "common law",
nature, typically means "natural laws"
govermental body means the constitution, the laws congress passes, and the how the courts interpret these laws.
you left out "the law of God"

now the problem with each of these concepts is that they are fluid, and not fixed in meaning.

english common law may not be in the tradition of a immigrant from asia
natural laws would clearly differ between cultures
laws passed by congress?? don't even get me started
law of God? who's definition of "God's laws" do you want to use? Jews? Christians?, Muslims?, Hindus? .....

inalienable rights are not innumerable or identifiable.
your argument is based upon a false assumption. "

You have proceeded in your analysis without addressing his. You can't both be right in your reasoning. I have addressed both arguments and shown how his critique can be addressed. Our rights are inalienable because they are part of our genetic code and it is our genetic code that is the Creator, the fact that the universe is such that it supports life that evolves, that we are hear as a reflection of how what is Is. We are the universe made aware and it is good. If you self examine you will find truth self evident as the self you truly are. You and the creator are reflections of each other, so much so as to be One. Of course if you identify with and think you are a thousand pounds of cabbage you won't see. But the good news is that rights are indeed inalienable and heartsurgeon has missed the boat. We are all the same and we are all One. Your notion of creator is just an imperfect understanding but it is real. And while mine lacks the pizazz yours does, mine is amenable to scientific discovery and proof and one day, doubtless will be. A no faith required, creator, self evident, as it were.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wrong, the head tax would not require $8500 a year per person. That would be what would be required if the tax was revenue neutral which it is not. I think the government could get by just fine on $1,000 a year per person without increasing the deficit. That would be $1,000 a year per man, woman and child and would generate about $300 billion a year in revenue. The homeless and others unable to pay could get a private charity to pay their head tax and I'm virtually 100% certain such charities would be created. The difference is that this would not be an act derived from coercion but an act derived from genuine goodwill.

I don't envision a head tax anytime soon either, but getting back to the original point: it is the tax that is most in line with the idea that free trade is a right and there is no rational reason that I can think of for why it is not a right.

However, this is straying from the point and I wrote an entire essay on the head tax which is in the archives if you want to search for it, just to go search and type: head tax.

Why do you think it would be only be $1000 per person? That seems awfully low when you consider the tax revenue you are eliminating, and the costs of all of our defense, civil, etc. Your system might be feasible, despite some signifigant flaws, if this were true. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that. You're eliminating all corporate taxes, a huge source of revenue, and then allowing them to use public resources that individuals payed for, like the interstate, etc.

Frankly, I found the $8500 more believable than the 1000 you suggested, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the countries budget.

It should only be $1,000 per person because there must be limits on the size of government. The reason why is kind of complicated and relates to end ranking signals within individuals and the distortion of those signals when expressed relating to public goods. I've been writing an entire essay on this and I won't post it here, but that's the general reason. The fact that the government in its current state has absolutely no limits to its size is very bad.

Defense spending is way out of control and it could certainly be drastically reduced without giving up the fact that no country can pose a threat to the U.S. I think defense spending of about $40 billion a year would be adequate, this of course would entail pulling U.S. troops out of foreign countries. I don't think that the U.S. has to have troops at the physical location in order to impose threats on nations in the world that bully and threaten certain democracies.

It is interesting that you brought up the interstate system. I actually believe that this should be sold off to private companies who would then determine how this is to be paid for. The highways are a supply of a good just like anything else and the demand for this good is obviously exceeding the supply because the link between payment and consumption is broken. I think its paid for by gas taxes in my state, California but this does not mean that an equilibrium price is met. If the roads were turned over to a private company that company would be held accountable for traffic jams which would respond a lot better to market signals than the government does. The highway system is one of the only areas where I believe it should be a government regulated monopoly.

As for corporations, they consist of individuals so those individuals in the corporation should be allowed to partake in public goods. If the corporation or anyone imposes a cost on government then they should pay for that cost. For instance if it costs the government money to maintain public records regarding private ownership of property then the corporation that imposes that cost should pay for it. In other words the government could still sell services in certain areas as it does today.

1. Please go and find out what the current US Budget is. (for those that are not into actual research the answer is $2.2 trillion for 2005)

2. If you can find a way to make the country work with the small fraction (13%) of that budget that you are proposing ($300 billion), you should put it in a book and run for office.

3. How do you tax the prisoners, mentally handicapped, laid off workers, injured on the job and on disability etc.... with $1K being the rule (even though they were right when saying it would be at least $3k per head on this kind of a plan.)

4. How many companies are you going to put out of business by forcing them to raise minimum wage to at least $12/hr so that the employees can afford have a home, vehicle (or annual bus fare) and food?

1. The current budget is irrelevent. The scope of government should never be beyond the scope of what is allowable by our rights as human beings.

2. I don't have to, the country has worked with a small fraction of today's budget already in the past. Granted the population has grown since then but the size of government has grown disporportionally in relation to population growth in real dollars. The government today is wealthier than at any time in history.

3. Already been addressed, private charities. Taxpayers who are currently shelling out millions would probably be more than happy to pay a disabled person's head tax for they would become wealthier than ever(as everyone else would be, in fact a head tax would insure that society as a whole would become unimaginably wealthier). As for prisoners, at the time of their imprisonment their head tax money would be deducted from whatever money was confiscated from them. If they serve 30 years then they pay $30,000. If some prisoners did not have money at the time of their imprisonment then the other wealthier prisoners would make up the difference just because its unlikely a private charity would pay a prisoner's head tax.

4. I don't see how this is much different than point 3. If someone cannot pay their head tax they go to a charity and indicate that they are not able to pay, the charity either loans them money or simply pays their tax. In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the population which is the whole idea.

This isn't a personal attack but you are very unrealistic in what can be done with such a small budget and your faith in people paying $1K - 3K a head in taxes and also paying out to charities. Right now the major reason most (not all) people give to charities is because of the tax break not for this "warm fuzzy economics" theory of yours. It's also real easy to say "Government, you should only spend 13 cents on the current budget dollar and keep the country running." Like I have said though, put it in writting and don't just say "it's broke". If it works financially, the country will back you or at least your plan.

In regards to your statement "In any event $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money for the vast majority of the Population which is the whole idea." You are definately in the dark there. Have you any idea what it takes for a minimum wage family to have a home/apartment, 1 vehicle, food, insurance, utilities and a minimal social life? You can't count on the "good nature" of others for a countries budget.

Under the head tax FICA would end which would put payroll taxes back into the pockets of low income earners. This would automatically give them a 7.5% boost and some economists claim it would actually boost their paychecks by 15% since these earners actually pay the portion that is supposedly paid by their employers. That would probably give them more than enough to pay the head tax. On a paltry salary of $6,700 a year the head tax would already be mitigated by the lack of FICA.

If you think that donations to private charity will only be made out of artificial government incentives then I'm sorry, you have a severe lack of faith in your common man. On the contrary the enormous amount of wealth generated by the head tax accross all income levels will enable people to donate more than ever to private charities.

The problem with your proposal is that everyone has a different idea of government, under my idea of government the head tax would work without a doubt. Under Fred's, Suzy's or Tom's idea of government the head tax may not even be able to begin to pay for government. Obviously the head tax would force the government to shrink, to me this is a good thing. Others believe government should be larger. In any event, however large one believe's government should be it should be a fixed size and this is a conclusion I have reached through deductive logic. One of the only ways to do this is to get government off the percentage system, so that it is no longer taking a percentage of the economy but rather has a fixed overall cost that is paid yearly. The head tax is certainly one of the best ways to achieve this.

Good luck with your Warm Fuzzy Economics and like I have said a few times now... Create the government you are wanting to run on 13% of it's current budget, put it in writting and then publish it on the web. Take the current budget that you can Download from many sources and re-write it with your proposals.

You are just saying "Guys, make cuts and only spend 300,000,000,000. Have a good day." Show me how this will work and you might be able to sway me. As it stands though, you aren't using "deductive logic", you are using pure guesswork.

You are mistaken. I said I used deductive logic to come to the conclusion that the size of government must be fixed, not a percentage. This is aside from my view of what that size should be.

I'll tell you right now how to get the government down to 13%. Eliminate Social Security, there goes 21.7%, cut defense down to $40 billion, there goes 15.66% (ten percent of 17.4 percent), eliminate medicare, income security and health, there goes 36.2%, privatize education and transportation, there goes 6.5%, phase out veterans benefits by avoiding foreign wars, trim back on all the agriculture pork and science you are left with 7.7% for interest on the national debt and we will say after trimming the Other category we are down to 5.3% (conservative estimate). Add all that up and you get about 13%.




Text

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

You are mistaken. I said I used deductive logic to come to the conclusion that the size of government must be fixed, not a percentage. This is aside from my view of what that size should be.

I'll tell you right now how to get the government down to 13%. Eliminate Social Security, there goes 21.7%, cut defense down to $40 billion, there goes 15.66% (ten percent of 17.4 percent), eliminate medicare, income security and health, there goes 36.2%, privatize education and transportation, there goes 6.5%, phase out veterans benefits by avoiding foreign wars, trim back on all the agriculture pork and science you are left with 7.7% for interest on the national debt and we will say after trimming the Other category we are down to 5.3% (conservative estimate). Add all that up and you get about 13%.




Text

The difficult part of this plan would be making it work, but grafting it onto our current system. There are lots of people who have paid SS and want the benefits, there are people who plans to use medicare and in case you haven't noticed the United States is making heavy use of its military right now. Veterans benefits aren't going anywhere anytime soon, again considering the state of the world right now. Not to mention the huge deficit we've racked up.

This just seems like it would take at least 50 years to make happen. We can't even get the American public to except a plan that takes 4 years to pay off, let alone 50.

Also, I agree with the other guy regarding charity. I think you're grossly overestimating its capability...and why would 'wealthy' prisoners be required to pay extra fines in effect, for other criminals. Thats pretty uneven justice to me. Are you proposing liquidating the assets of every individual who got caught stealing a TV?

I just don't think it would work myself.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Dissipate

You are mistaken. I said I used deductive logic to come to the conclusion that the size of government must be fixed, not a percentage. This is aside from my view of what that size should be.

I'll tell you right now how to get the government down to 13%. Eliminate Social Security, there goes 21.7%, cut defense down to $40 billion, there goes 15.66% (ten percent of 17.4 percent), eliminate medicare, income security and health, there goes 36.2%, privatize education and transportation, there goes 6.5%, phase out veterans benefits by avoiding foreign wars, trim back on all the agriculture pork and science you are left with 7.7% for interest on the national debt and we will say after trimming the Other category we are down to 5.3% (conservative estimate). Add all that up and you get about 13%.




Text

The difficult part of this plan would be making it work, but grafting it onto our current system. There are lots of people who have paid SS and want the benefits, there are people who plans to use medicare and in case you haven't noticed the United States is making heavy use of its military right now. Veterans benefits aren't going anywhere anytime soon, again considering the state of the world right now. Not to mention the huge deficit we've racked up.

This just seems like it would take at least 50 years to make happen. We can't even get the American public to except a plan that takes 4 years to pay off, let alone 50.

Also, I agree with the other guy regarding charity. I think you're grossly overestimating its capability...and why would 'wealthy' prisoners be required to pay extra fines in effect, for other criminals. Thats pretty uneven justice to me. Are you proposing liquidating the assets of every individual who got caught stealing a TV?

I just don't think it would work myself.

You are right, it would all have to be phased out. Elimination of all these government programs tomorrow would wreak havoc. However, if it takes 50 years it takes 50 years, I think freedom in 50 years is much better than never.

As for overestimating, that's up for debate. Let's assume the worst, that private charities were not able to provide for the head taxes of the lower income people. In that case you let those people have deferments and then increase the head tax a small percent to make up the difference. You would really have to be destitute to not be able to pay, obviously this would include the homeless and maybe families that didn't plan well. However, this slight budge in ideology is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the government would still be on a fixed income which is the ultimate goal.

So you would only have two group of people: A. Those unable to pay. B. Those able to pay. With nothing in between. Since the tax would be so low to begin with those unable to pay would be a small percentage of the population. Let's take a look at how much the head tax would have to increase with different percentages unable to pay.

At 10% the head tax would be $1,111.11 At 20% it would be $1,250 and so on. So the tax would not increase that much as the percentage of population unable to pay increases. Paradoxially the more people that drop out, the higher the tax goes which causes even more to be unable to pay. Eventually though a balance would be found.

You don't think it would work because the only thing you know "works" is current government, which I admit works to a certain degree but at an enormous cost to our freedom of peaceful exchange. My position is that government could continue to work to a degree that is adequate while maintaining our freedom and privacy.