Is it bad to be "rich"?

[Bowfinger]

What sandorski and razor have tried to do is create an abstract idea. The idea that you owe something to society, which of course we all do. They however flinch at the actual representation of the cost. They flinch because that cost would need to be defined, and once defined, can be paid. Instead, the cost is abstract, it is whatever they want to it to be, and in this manner is an endless justification for all costs that they impose. And what will the justify with it? Whatever policy they wish to advance.

In effect, the cost you put on society is not some monetary amount that can be paid but an abstract limitless quantity that you are forever indebted, like a slave.

The fact is that I do not believe sandorski can name a monetary amount, that once paid, would free a person from being eternally indebted to such a society. Afterwards, a person would be given no discount on the price of the public goods they utilize and pay it in full.

If there exists no price, just obligation, then truly we are all slaves to a society not of our choosing.

This is exactly what I've stated (though it may have been in the other thread? I'm getting them confused at this point) numerous times. To them, society is like the mob: once you're in, you're in and there's no way out. Once you owe them, you always owe them. Except they don't see society as a mob, they see it as a teddy bear.

It seems to me that premise is fundamentally flawed because it presumes society's investment in you is a set amount. It isn't; it increases over time and varies according to the services you use. Your query is akin to asking your local mega-mall to set a price for a lifetime of free shopping. There's no predictable way to do so because it depends on what you take and how much you take from the vast array of goods and services available.

Also recognize that it's a bit self-serving to suggest one is a "slave" to society with "no way out." In all seriousness, you do have the option to leave, to move to another country with a tax system you find more palatable. The fact is you are making a choice to remain here, presumably because you want access to the benefits of living in the United States. By making that choice, however, you also obligate yourself to pay America's annual dues.

It's an easy choice for me. I am thrilled with the success I've made thanks to the resources and opportunities available to me. I'm thrilled with the purchasing power of my net income, not in despair over the difference between my net and my imaginary gross. Yes, I'd love to pay lower taxes. Yes, I'd love for the various government bodies to stop wasting so damn much money. I'd love for those poor who are lazy to get off their dead butts and contribute more to society; I'd love for those rich who are greedy or lazy to show the integrity to pay their fair share. I'd love all sorts of things in America to be different ... but not enough that I'm willing to leave. I have control of my life and that's my choice. YMMV.

 

[Bowfinger]

You need to get past your fantasy that I am forever indebted an unlimited amount of money to pay for my limited use of infrastructure. You wield this supposed debt to society as a weapon to remove any claim regarding personal responsibility or merit.

In your system, everything I am is owed to someone else, and that is a debt which can never be paid to people who are long dead; I can claim no credit for anything I achieve, but society as a whole can claim credit for all of it; no matter the amount of work, time, energy, and effort I put into my innovation, I have no responsibility for it and owe it all to previous generations. Thus, we see that we owe everything in our society to Adam and Eve, without whom none of us could accomplish anything. Because of Adam and Eve, I have an unlimited debt to every other person in society. Because of Adam and Eve, I have no claim to the merits or fruits of my labor. But other people who are also not Adam and Eve have a claim to the fruits of my labor. This is the underlying foundation of your system as you described it. Your system sucks.

That is not what I'm saying at all. You're attacking a straw man caricature of my position.

I agree that society itself produces no innovation. I recognize innovation is something that (in general) springs from exceptional individuals. I fully support rewarding those individuals for their inspiration and hard work, both in terms of greater income and by giving them the opportunity to commercialize and profit from their ideas.

Brilliant people are often poor businessmen, however. Therefore, I also support allowing less innovative but more business-savvy people hire innovators and invest their capital to turn brilliant ideas into profitable goods and services. In return for this investment -- i.e., risking one's capital in the hope of gaining greater profits -- I accept that such investors gain the right to share the rewards due to the innovators they support. I support that the investor's payout will grow according to the success of his investments. That's how investments typically work.

And that's where society fits into the picture. Society has invested in the innovator, providing both the infrastructure for success and the foundation upon which essentially all modern innovations are built. Society has equally invested in the businessman, with the infrastructure not only for personal success but also commercial success. As an investor in our success, society is entitled to a share -- a share, mind you, not 100% -- of our rewards. The greater our rewards, the greater the payout to society. That's how investments typically work.

My system is one in which I pay a nominal fee for using a product or service. This fee may be proportional to the amount of the product or service I use. Thus, I have a claim to the fruits of my labor and can claim the merits of that labor after paying my finite debt to society for enabling that labor. This allows me to better myself and society in one go rather than working simply to dig my own grave.

To put it bluntly, that's not the way America works. You can have your system, but it would require leaving the United States for a country or perhaps a private island that hasn't invested so much in building the infrastructure for success. In such a place, you would be free to spend exactly as much as is needed to provide the resources you need. In return, you could keep the full rewards for your innovation and hard work.

You describe me as a slave to society.

Not at all. Society is your investor or partner. Society has invested its capital in giving you opportunities to succeed. Investors have every right to expect a return on their investments.

Society is my only source of sustenance without which I can accomplish nothing. You fail to see that society exists. Its existence implies that an achievement, such as society, is possible without society. Society is a means to this end. Does society exist to serve individuals or the other way around? Trick question. Individuals are part of society. Thus, the greater good will always be achieved by serving your own needs. If I spend all of my time and effort fulfilling the needs of others or society, I will die and so will all of my dependents.

That's fallacious reasoning, a false dichotomy. As a great philosopher once said, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. ;-) One can strike a healthy balance between serving his individual interests and the greater interests of society as a whole.

My ideology is simply this: if I work to earn something, then the earning is mine. If I have expenses along the way (e.g. the use of infrastructure), then that is an expense that is deducted from my earnings. I am responsible if I screw up, and I get the merit if I succeed.

See above.

Your ideology is that no one is responsible for anything and no one has any merit: you have given society credit for everything.

That is not my point at all, nor did I suggest anything of the sort. Indeed, I've clearly said just the opposite. I suppose this is the point where I should impugn your literacy, but instead I'll chalk it up to hyperbole and high emotions.

The corollary is that society is responsible for everyone and everything. Since society is simply a means to an end and can never produce anything by itself, your system (which is increasingly approximated by our current government) fails. When no one is responsible for anyone, when everyone is simply a cog in the wheel of society, and when everyone is infinitely beholden to society, everyone becomes a slave to society: the individual exists to serve society rather than society serving the individual.

Hardly.

 

[CycloWizard]

That is not what I'm saying at all. You're attacking a straw man caricature of my position.

I agree that society itself produces no innovation. I recognize innovation is something that (in general) springs from exceptional individuals. I fully support rewarding those individuals for their inspiration and hard work, both in terms of greater income and by giving them the opportunity to commercialize and profit from their ideas.

Brilliant people are often poor businessmen, however. Therefore, I also support allowing less innovative but more business-savvy people hire innovators and invest their capital to turn brilliant ideas into profitable goods and services. In return for this investment -- i.e., risking one's capital in the hope of gaining greater profits -- I accept that such investors gain the right to share the rewards due to the innovators they support. I support that the investor's payout will grow according to the success of his investments. That's how investments typically work.

And that's where society fits into the picture. Society has invested in the innovator, providing both the infrastructure for success and the foundation upon which essentially all modern innovations are built. Society has equally invested in the businessman, with the infrastructure not only for personal success but also commercial success. As an investor in our success, society is entitled to a share -- a share, mind you, not 100% -- of our rewards. The greater our rewards, the greater the payout to society. That's how investments typically work.

Society benefits from innovation whether or not income stemming from that innovation are taxed.

To put it bluntly, that's not the way America works. You can have your system, but it would require leaving the United States for a country or perhaps a private island that hasn't invested so much in building the infrastructure for success. In such a place, you would be free to spend exactly as much as is needed to provide the resources you need. In return, you could keep the full rewards for your innovation and hard work.

Obviously that's how it works. But is that how it should work? Currently in the US, the way the legal system is set up, your system stated in the first quote above is forced down my throat whether or not I'm business savvy or anything else. I cannot start my own company based on a wonderfully innovative idea because, in addition to needing the capital to build my invention, I need an additional $30k or so to patent it, then a legal team to enforce it. "Society" (read: government) has erected barriers to innovation which are at least equal in magnitude to the benefits rendered by any infrastructure. There are two ways over or around these obstacles: find a venture capitalist who will pay for all of this crap, then take most of the rewards, or join a company large enough to cover the costs, then turn over even more of the proceeds to said company. Or, a third way: start by being independently wealthy. All of these cater to those who already have large amounts of wealth accumulated and present a barrier to anyone who might be otherwise able to make a chunk of change for innovating, let alone the added time required to do all of these things unrelated to innovation. In other words, the way things are now sucks and simply creates an aristocracy - why would you want to perpetuate that?

Not at all. Society is your investor or partner. Society has invested its capital in giving you opportunities to succeed. Investors have every right to expect a return on their investments.

You are still treating individuals as an "investment." This is slavery because when you buy or sell a stock to make money on your investment, the stock doesn't have to give you a part of the wealth it created. A real investor who enables innovation, such as a venture capitalist, sees the potential for innovation and gives money to support that innovation. Society renders a service (providing infrastructure), which the innovator has already paid for with his taxes. Selling a service is not the same thing as investing capital. If you are prepared to argue that the role of government is not to provide a service but to invest in individuals, then I'm prepared to argue that you're wrong. You have created a false model of what government should be. I say that it's false based on the Declaration of Independence, which states what government should be - a protector of rights and a provider of services for the general welfare, not an investor.

That's fallacious reasoning, a false dichotomy. As a great philosopher once said, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. ;-) One can strike a healthy balance between serving his individual interests and the greater interests of society as a whole.

It's not my job to make sure I'm meeting society's needs any more than it is society's job to make sure it is meeting my needs. The job of society's constituent individuals is to ensure that their own needs are met. The job of government is to make sure I don't get in the way of your needs being met by infringing on your rights to life, liberty, or property. The job of society is to bring people together so that they can interact and make sure their needs are met.

It seems to me that premise is fundamentally flawed because it presumes society's investment in you is a set amount. It isn't; it increases over time and varies according to the services you use. Your query is akin to asking your local mega-mall to set a price for a lifetime of free shopping. There's no predictable way to do so because it depends on what you take and how much you take from the vast array of goods and services available.

What's wrong with paying for services as I use them? This works in every sector of private business and is how things get done. Your method is simply allowing the seller to bill me an arbitrary amount at a later date rather than an agreed-upon price. If I drive 50 miles on a toll road and it is stated that the toll is 10 cents/mile, then I'll owe $5 when I'm done. In your system, I would drive down the road without knowing what the toll would be. Then, when I get to the end, the guy manning the booth can ask me for however much he wants and I have to pay it or be imprisoned. You don't see it this way because you are stuck in the model that says I belong to society as its investment. This is slavery.

Also recognize that it's a bit self-serving to suggest one is a "slave" to society with "no way out." In all seriousness, you do have the option to leave, to move to another country with a tax system you find more palatable. The fact is you are making a choice to remain here, presumably because you want access to the benefits of living in the United States. By making that choice, however, you also obligate yourself to pay America's annual dues.

And I have no problem doing that, as long as you can tell me what my dues are. Instead, you keep saying that I owe an undefined amount for undefined services because those services are not services - they're an investment. Thus, I am your investment property and you own me. That is slavery.

It's an easy choice for me. I am thrilled with the success I've made thanks to the resources and opportunities available to me. I'm thrilled with the purchasing power of my net income, not in despair over the difference between my net and my imaginary gross. Yes, I'd love to pay lower taxes. Yes, I'd love for the various government bodies to stop wasting so damn much money. I'd love for those poor who are lazy to get off their dead butts and contribute more to society; I'd love for those rich who are greedy or lazy to show the integrity to pay their fair share. I'd love all sorts of things in America to be different ... but not enough that I'm willing to leave. I have control of my life and that's my choice. YMMV.

Here I agree with you. The difference between us seems to be that you see the way things are now as the way things will always be, whereas I see things the way they are now and see how they should be in the future.

 

[Tom]

This talk about limitless taxation is nonsense. It isn't hard to know what taxes you're supposed to pay. Your problem really is you think they're too high. You might be right, but it's irresponsible to not pay for the government we have. Make government smaller if you want lower taxes.

But, the reality is most people don't want smaller government, if they did we'd have it. Your position isn't what the majority wants and since you choose to live here you have to follow the rules. Of course you're free to try to change things.

And the whole thing about paying per use, well, that isn't what most people want or that's the way things would be. Some things are like that, and more used to be like that, but lots of people prefer the convenience of having things there when they need them.

 

[nonlnear]

This talk about limitless taxation is nonsense. It isn't hard to know what taxes you're supposed to pay. Your problem really is you think they're too high. You might be right, but it's irresponsible to not pay for the government we have. Make government smaller if you want lower taxes.

I thought my clarification[/quote] of limitless was pretty sensible. I tried to put some more precise fences around the term, because just throwing around "limitless" in a discussion is about as crazy as crowing on about "freedom" in vague terms, or the "debt owed to society". I'll assume for the time being that my post was missed. It's easy to lose one post in a thread so full of prolific posters!

But, the reality is most people don't want smaller government,

This could well be true, but your reasoning:

if they did we'd have it.

is flawed. This assumes that our system of institutions is actually capable of consistently translating the will of the people into a system of government. The simple fact is that our institutional framework makes it MUCH easier to grow government than to prune it back. This has been the case for the vast majority of government systems, and the American republic is no different.

 

[CycloWizard]

This talk about limitless taxation is nonsense. It isn't hard to know what taxes you're supposed to pay. Your problem really is you think they're too high. You might be right, but it's irresponsible to not pay for the government we have. Make government smaller if you want lower taxes.

I want government to be smaller. The problem is that it doesn't appear that it will ever become smaller. It is growing and growing and growing. This growth will inevitably lead to increased taxation. Since government is growing without limit, so must taxation on a long enough timeline.

But, the reality is most people don't want smaller government, if they did we'd have it. Your position isn't what the majority wants and since you choose to live here you have to follow the rules. Of course you're free to try to change things.

Most people are idiots. I'm simply pointing that out to them. I don't expect them to like it when I tell them that they're idiots, but if I tell them enough times, maybe they'll at least consider the possibility. One can only cease being an idiot once one realizes that one is an idiot. Unfortunately, it is impossible for anyone to be intelligent enough to understand his own stupidity, but salvation can be had by anyone who recognizes that he is stupid and turns from the path of self destruction to the extent he is able to do so.

And the whole thing about paying per use, well, that isn't what most people want or that's the way things would be. Some things are like that, and more used to be like that, but lots of people prefer the convenience of having things there when they need them.

That's because most people are idiots. A toll road is there when I need it because someone made a capital investment to put it there. They can then make money every time someone drives by. This idea is the foundation of all businesses, so why can't the government follow suit? Your idea that the services wouldn't be there until it was too late is simply false. How does the gas get in the pump if we don't pay for it until after we pump it? How does Walmart have everything you need if you don't pay for it until you leave the store?

 

[Tom]

I thought my clarification

of limitless was pretty sensible. I tried to put some more precise fences around the term, because just throwing around "limitless" in a discussion is about as crazy as crowing on about "freedom" in vague terms, or the "debt owed to society". I'll assume for the time being that my post was missed. It's easy to lose one post in a thread so full of prolific posters!
This could well be true, but your reasoning:is flawed. This assumes that our system of institutions is actually capable of consistently translating the will of the people into a system of government. The simple fact is that our institutional framework makes it MUCH easier to grow government than to prune it back. This has been the case for the vast majority of government systems, and the American republic is no different.[/QUOTE]

That's true but I would say a big factor in that is people like the things government does, when they need it, and don't actually want it pruned back.

Everybody wants waste and abuse pruned back, but it costs money to find it.

I'm biased, but I don't see any other governments or places that do things better than us, and that includes arguing with each other and getting tangible results from that discourse.

 

[nonlnear]

Everybody wants waste and abuse pruned back, but it costs money to find it.

Some people want whole programs cut too, or at least severely reduced.

 

[Tom]

are you gonna make all roads toll roads ? are you going to build a toll booth at every intersection and driveway ?

what about sidewalks, gonna charge people to walk on them ? How you gonna keep them from akipping toll booths, surround sidewalks with barbed wire ?

What about pay toilets ? In your house.
\

 

[Tom]

Some people want whole programs cut too, or at least severely reduced.

some people isn't good enough, you need a majority of voters to elect a candidate.

What program do you think a majority wants to eliminate ? I know some people want to spend more on.

Policing immigration.
Food safety.

 

[CycloWizard]

are you gonna make all roads toll roads ? are you going to build a toll booth at every intersection and driveway ?

what about sidewalks, gonna charge people to walk on them ? How you gonna keep them from akipping toll booths, surround sidewalks with barbed wire ?

What about pay toilets ? In your house.
\

I didn't say I was going to make all roads toll roads and already specifically stated how we could address the issue of roads without resorting to the use of toll booths. Thanks for proving my earlier point though.

 

[sandorski]

This talk about limitless taxation is nonsense. It isn't hard to know what taxes you're supposed to pay. Your problem really is you think they're too high. You might be right, but it's irresponsible to not pay for the government we have. Make government smaller if you want lower taxes.

But, the reality is most people don't want smaller government, if they did we'd have it. Your position isn't what the majority wants and since you choose to live here you have to follow the rules. Of course you're free to try to change things.

And the whole thing about paying per use, well, that isn't what most people want or that's the way things would be. Some things are like that, and more used to be like that, but lots of people prefer the convenience of having things there when they need them.

There are 3 problems I can think of now with Pay Per Use:

1) Determining an Individuals Use. IIRC Bowfinger addressed the complexity of it and how in some ways it already has been implemented.

2) In order for someone to Pay Per Use, the System has first to be Built. This is really the Big Cost involved and simply can not reasonably be Paid for by a Pay Per Use system. It involves a large Investment that needs to be Paid for through other means. Related to Building these Systems is when such Systems need extensive Upgrades or even Replacement.

3) Not everyone needs the same Systems or more accurately always needs the same systems. They still require Funding though and Funding through Pay Per Use can be too Costly only for those needing such Systems, yet often even those not using such Systems benefit in other indirect ways.

Since Cyclo has apparently Blocked me(haven't verified), I will address a couple points here regarding Growing Government and the Idea of Limitless Taxation. These are not directly related and/or one does not necessarily lead to the other. Due to the magic of Economic Growth, Taxes can remain constant and Government can Grow simultaneously. Government Growth is a Moot point and does not address the real issue, that is whether it makes sense for Government to involve itself in certain things or not. When one simply looks at Growth as a Good/Bad, they have painted themselves into an Ideological corner that completely dismisses whether it is more Efficient for Government to address certain Issues or not.

 

[nonlnear]

some people isn't good enough, you need a majority of voters to elect a candidate.

If only it were so simple. Only if by voters you mean people who actually cast ballots as opposed to eligible voters.

What program do you think a majority wants to eliminate ? I know some people want to spend more on.

I think we are approaching a tipping point regarding marijuana prohibition. Granted that's not the entire DEA, but it's a significant part. I would wager that a lot of corporate subsidies woul dbe opposed by a majority if they were actually educated as to what's oging on behind closed doors. I shake my head every time I read about an economic development project where the tax relief granted is in the same ballpark as the "economic activity generated" by the project. The actual benefit to the jurisdiction is vastly overstated by the common methods of estimating "economic activity generated" (because most of the spent dollars in that activity would have been spent elsewhere anyways, and most of the profit extracted form it isn't going back into the community giving the tax relief either).

Frankly I don't much care about public opinion when it comes to evaluating the merits of policy because it is so easily manipulated. Even many of the opinions people believe they hold due to core beliefs are actually constructed on nothing more than a few vague notions that somebody smart somewhere believes it, and they identify with the tone of the speaker. I prefer to evaluate policy on merits other than what a hundred million idiots think. One idiots' opinion is enough for me.

Policing immigration.
Food safety.

I would like to spend more on some programs too. More on veteran care (while drastically cutting the military), more on the patent office, more on surveillance of government officials. By the last item, I mean to say that I believe that elected officials should have no right to privacy in any matter of public concern ever, except when dealing with matters that have specifically enforceable legal privileges. No secret emeetings with the local millionaires' club, no clsoed doors for anything - except dealing with victims of crime, matters of legal privilege, health records, etc. It would totally kill the lobbying industry, at least as it exists today. It'll never happen though, for that very reason...

 

[Bowfinger]

Society benefits from innovation whether or not income stemming from that innovation are taxed.

Agreed. Taxes are not society's benefit from innovation, they are the means to recoup the cost of the infrastructure supporting the innovation and of continuing to support future innovation and opportunities for success.

Obviously that's how it works. But is that how it should work?

I absolutely agree the current system has much room for improvement.

Currently in the US, the way the legal system is set up, your system stated in the first quote above is forced down my throat whether or not I'm business savvy or anything else. I cannot start my own company based on a wonderfully innovative idea because, in addition to needing the capital to build my invention, I need an additional $30k or so to patent it, then a legal team to enforce it. "Society" (read: government) has erected barriers to innovation which are at least equal in magnitude to the benefits rendered by any infrastructure.

It seems to me you have it backwards. You are not required to use society's system. You are perfectly free to start a business based on your innovative idea without the financial overhead of patenting it and hiring a legal team. If you do, however, your competitors will immediately steal your idea (if it's good) and likely use their deep pockets to drive you out of business. Society offers the means for you to protect your innovation, at least in theory, by providing patent and legal systems. This protection isn't a barrier, it's a shield.

There are two ways over or around these obstacles: find a venture capitalist who will pay for all of this crap, then take most of the rewards, or join a company large enough to cover the costs, then turn over even more of the proceeds to said company. Or, a third way: start by being independently wealthy. All of these cater to those who already have large amounts of wealth accumulated and present a barrier to anyone who might be otherwise able to make a chunk of change for innovating, let alone the added time required to do all of these things unrelated to innovation. In other words, the way things are now sucks and simply creates an aristocracy - why would you want to perpetuate that?

I don't, but what's the alternative? I see society adding value by offering you IP and property protection. You could hire your own army of enforcers to go after anyone who infringes your idea, but that seems even more expensive ... and doomed to fail when you're challenging someone with deeper pockets.

Society provides a level playing field with protections to allow individuals and small businesses to compete with the rich and powerful mega-corps ... in theory. This obviously is imperfect in practice, but it seems to me it's better than nothing at all. In a truly free and unregulated market, small innovators will be crushed on sight. What would you propose as an alternative?

You are still treating individuals as an "investment." This is slavery because when you buy or sell a stock to make money on your investment, the stock doesn't have to give you a part of the wealth it created. A real investor who enables innovation, such as a venture capitalist, sees the potential for innovation and gives money to support that innovation. Society renders a service (providing infrastructure), which the innovator has already paid for with his taxes. Selling a service is not the same thing as investing capital. If you are prepared to argue that the role of government is not to provide a service but to invest in individuals, then I'm prepared to argue that you're wrong. You have created a false model of what government should be. I say that it's false based on the Declaration of Independence, which states what government should be - a protector of rights and a provider of services for the general welfare, not an investor.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it's all the Constitutional role of government. I'm saying that's the reality of the United States today. The fact is Americans have this incredible "infrastructure" and it has been largely paid for by the government. It is therefore reasonable and appropriate for the government to pay for that infrastructure by collecting income taxes from those who's success has been supported by that infrastructure.

I agree it's absolutely legitimate to consider changes. To the extent that those changes reduce government's cost of supporting success, taxes should then be reduced. Unfortunately, given that the federal government is already running a crushing deficit, there is no direct correlation between government costs and taxation.

It's not my job to make sure I'm meeting society's needs any more than it is society's job to make sure it is meeting my needs. The job of society's constituent individuals is to ensure that their own needs are met. The job of government is to make sure I don't get in the way of your needs being met by infringing on your rights to life, liberty, or property. The job of society is to bring people together so that they can interact and make sure their needs are met.

IIRC, I was addressing your suggestion that serving you own interests was in society's best interest. I was pointing out that this is not necessarily true.

What's wrong with paying for services as I use them? This works in every sector of private business and is how things get done. Your method is simply allowing the seller to bill me an arbitrary amount at a later date rather than an agreed-upon price. If I drive 50 miles on a toll road and it is stated that the toll is 10 cents/mile, then I'll owe $5 when I'm done. In your system, I would drive down the road without knowing what the toll would be. Then, when I get to the end, the guy manning the booth can ask me for however much he wants and I have to pay it or be imprisoned. You don't see it this way because you are stuck in the model that says I belong to society as its investment. This is slavery.

And I have no problem doing that, as long as you can tell me what my dues are. Instead, you keep saying that I owe an undefined amount for undefined services because those services are not services - they're an investment. Thus, I am your investment property and you own me. That is slavery.

Re. "slavery" -- hyperbole noted, but it's nonsense. It's the dues you pay for living here. You have the right to opt out of your "slavery" by leaving. By choosing to remain, you have accepted the terms of living here including taxation. If you don't like those terms, you can lobby your elected representatives to change them.

Re. knowing the amount of those dues in advance -- the IRS publishes the formulas and rules that tell you what your dues will be based on a wide variety of criteria. They are subject to change, of course, but its rare for dramatic changes to occur without advance notice. If you don't feel qualified to calculate your dues in advance based on your current circumstances, there are plenty of financial advisers for hire who can.

Here I agree with you. The difference between us seems to be that you see the way things are now as the way things will always be, whereas I see things the way they are now and see how they should be in the future.

Not really. I accept that I need to pay for the way things are today while simultaneously seeking to improve them in the future.

 

[CycloWizard]

It seems to me you have it backwards. You are not required to use society's system. You are perfectly free to start a business based on your innovative idea without the financial overhead of patenting it and hiring a legal team. If you do, however, your competitors will immediately steal your idea (if it's good) and likely use their deep pockets to drive you out of business. Society offers the means for you to protect your innovation, at least in theory, by providing patent and legal systems. This protection isn't a barrier, it's a shield.

I don't, but what's the alternative? I see society adding value by offering you IP and property protection. You could hire your own army of enforcers to go after anyone who infringes your idea, but that seems even more expensive ... and doomed to fail when you're challenging someone with deeper pockets.

Society provides a level playing field with protections to allow individuals and small businesses to compete with the rich and powerful mega-corps ... in theory. This obviously is imperfect in practice, but it seems to me it's better than nothing at all. In a truly free and unregulated market, small innovators will be crushed on sight. What would you propose as an alternative?

That's not been my experience as a young inventor with no access to capital. I have no way to patent anything I work on, which means this "protection" turns into an insurmountable obstacle which enables others to steal my ideas. If society was interested in protecting my idea, then they would use my taxes to have the USPTO do all of the crap that I have to pay a lawyer to do now. The current approach essentially requires hiring a lawyer to even apply for a patent. This is a simple fix that would get rid of the barrier and keep the protection. Maybe this service could only be offered to small businesses, or maybe it should be the job of the patent office to do this for all applications.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it's all the Constitutional role of government. I'm saying that's the reality of the United States today. The fact is Americans have this incredible "infrastructure" and it has been largely paid for by the government. It is therefore reasonable and appropriate for the government to pay for that infrastructure by collecting income taxes from those who's success has been supported by that infrastructure.

I agree it's absolutely legitimate to consider changes. To the extent that those changes reduce government's cost of supporting success, taxes should then be reduced. Unfortunately, given that the federal government is already running a crushing deficit, there is no direct correlation between government costs and taxation.

Fine, if that's what the government is spending income tax on, I'll cede that for the sake of argument. But infrastructure is an infinitesimal part of what government spends my money on.

IIRC, I was addressing your suggestion that serving you own interests was in society's best interest. I was pointing out that this is not necessarily true.

I'm not society's servant - it's not my job to do what's in society's best interest, and it's not the role of government to try to coerce me to do so. It can't even force me to testify against myself in court, let alone act against my own interests in my everyday life.

Re. "slavery" -- hyperbole noted, but it's nonsense. It's the dues you pay for living here. You have the right to opt out of your "slavery" by leaving. By choosing to remain, you have accepted the terms of living here including taxation. If you don't like those terms, you can lobby your elected representatives to change them.

It's not hyperbole - it's the truth. You want me to pay for infrastructure which I use. You then want me to support other members of society over and above paying for that infrastructure against my will. That's slavery, as now I am working not for my own benefit but for someone else's. Someone sitting at home all day watching cable TV is forcing me to hand over my hard-earned money to support them. The only thing missing is the plantation house. Simply because the owner is not a rich aristocrat does not make it any more morally palatable.

Re. knowing the amount of those dues in advance -- the IRS publishes the formulas and rules that tell you what your dues will be based on a wide variety of criteria. They are subject to change, of course, but its rare for dramatic changes to occur without advance notice. If you don't feel qualified to calculate your dues in advance based on your current circumstances, there are plenty of financial advisers for hire who can.

The tax code has changed dramatically just in the past two years and can change again at any time. There is no financial advisor on the planet that can tell me how to plan for irrational government rules about how much I'll owe. The government also penalized me for making more money this year than I anticipated - I ended up paying more in taxes than the extra income I brought in. I shouldn't have to hire a financial consultant to tell me that teaching that class is actually going to cost me money, or that working my ass off for a bonus is going to end up in a net loss. Instead, I suggest that the government should pass rational laws.

Not really. I accept that I need to pay for the way things are today while simultaneously seeking to improve them in the future.

All the while scolding me for suggesting why things are broken and how they might be fixed?

 

[nonlnear]

That's not been my experience as a young inventor with no access to capital. I have no way to patent anything I work on, which means this "protection" turns into an insurmountable obstacle which enables others to steal my ideas. If society was interested in protecting my idea, then they would use my taxes to have the USPTO do all of the crap that I have to pay a lawyer to do now. The current approach essentially requires hiring a lawyer to even apply for a patent. This is a simple fix that would get rid of the barrier and keep the protection. Maybe this service could only be offered to small businesses, or maybe it should be the job of the patent office to do this for all applications.

The price of a patent application is not a very high barrier to entry for anyone with halfway decent credit. If you truly believe your invention has commercial viability, then staking a few thousand for a patent application is not that big of a deal. You just get a fixed rate cash advance off a credit card and work a couple more hours at your day job.

If you don't have good enough credit to get a good cash advance offer, get an investor to buy a piece of the pie for $20K (or whatever) to float you through phase 1. Sure it might feel bad to sell a piece of equity that might be worth millions for a few thousand up front, but that's an attitude typically created by spending too much time in close proximity to one's own idea of where an invention is going to go. This distorts one's impression of the risks. (As we all know, an inflated sense of optimism is a common trait to almost all successful inventors. It's important to bear this in mind when evaluating one's own perspective on financial risk when it comes time to bring partners in.)

 

[CycloWizard]

The price of a patent application is not a very high barrier to entry for anyone with halfway decent credit. If you truly believe your invention has commercial viability, then staking a few thousand for a patent application is not that big of a deal. You just get a fixed rate cash advance off a credit card and work a couple more hours at your day job.

If you don't have good enough credit to get a good cash advance offer, get an investor to buy a piece of the pie for $20K (or whatever) to float you through phase 1. Sure it might feel bad to sell a piece of equity that might be worth millions for a few thousand up front, but that's an attitude typically created by spending too much time in close proximity to one's own idea of where an invention is going to go. This distorts one's impression of the risks. (As we all know, an inflated sense of optimism is a common trait to almost all successful inventors. It's important to bear this in mind when evaluating one's own perspective on financial risk when it comes time to bring partners in.)

I've been quoted $30k for preparation and filing of a single patent. That's a pretty substantial expense simply for applying for the possibility of being able to temporarily protect my own intellectual property, especially given that I would need considerably more money should I ever need to actually prosecute any infringement. Larger companies can easily exploit this barrier and take my patented IP, then hope that I can't come up with the means to fight the infringement. The best bet for someone in my situation is simply to keep everything as a trade secret and hope that it isn't reverse engineered. This has the downside of stifling the sharing of intellectual property, thereby preventing many of the gains to society which the patent process is supposed to (and generally does) encourage.

In the end, borrowing $30k even for a hypothetical venture which has zero risk and a guaranteed high yield becomes very risky when the protections the patent is supposed to afford can be circumvented or poached by an entity with larger resources. I could very well be wrong, as a lot of my thoughts on the whole IP business are heavily colored by my interactions with a JD on my soccer team who talked to me about it for the price of a six pack. I trust him as I have known him for 5 years (since I started grad school and he started law school) and he specialized in IP, but perhaps this trust is misplaced. In any case, I have serious misgivings about taking on any risk in the hope that a government entity will protect me from any individual, corporation, or the government itself at this point.

 

[nonlnear]

I've been quoted $30k for preparation and filing of a single patent.

Keep shopping. I just paid $10K for a WIPO filing. Of course WIPO protection might not be your best bet for your step one if you don't anticipate being cashflow positive in less than about 2 years. (WIPO protection buys you a reserved window in all signatory countries so that your rights are reserved prior to filing.)

Then again depending on the industry you're in, there may be a higher likelihood for multiple revisions, etc. which may or may not have been anticipated in that quote. Not to mention your price might depend on the number of pages, etc. as well. Granted I haven't explicitly shopped for a direct USA filing as a first step, but $30K for an initial filing still sounds kind of crazy to me...