[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35862251]Libertarian as in not the current hijacked use of the term by Ron Paul, etc. Libertarian as in anarchism.
What is wrong with anarchism sir and how is libertarian socialism contradictive?[/QUOTE]
Anarchism is wrong because it is unworkable. In the state of nature, man's life is, as Hobbes put it, "nasty, brutish and short". Libertarian socialism is contradictory because socialism requires a state.
[editline]8th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=toaster468;35864329]Yep, you can thank First Past The Post for that one![/QUOTE]
Erm
No you can't
[editline]8th May 2012[/editline]
And it's a Presidential election, what else did you expect
[editline]8th May 2012[/editline]
Like, half of Hollande and half of Sarkozy
[editline]8th May 2012[/editline]
And Le Pen's right hand
[QUOTE=Noble;35877704]Theft and redistribution of successful people's money doesn't seem to be a good solution to income inequality. Profit is what motivates businesses to cut waste and inefficiency, keep expenses low and revenues high, and what has driven social, economic and technological progress. Reduce profit through absurdly high taxes and you will reduce the motivation to run an efficient business.
Why? Because the money that would have been left over as profit from cutting inefficient expenses is going to be taxed heavily. The business owner has little reason not to say "fuck it, I'll just buy this equipment for my business even though I don't really need it" because if he doesn't buy it and keeps the money as profit, the profit will just be taxed away at some absurd rate anyway. Again, profit gives the business owner the incentive to cut wasteful spending and run the most efficient business possible.[/QUOTE]
If higher income gets taxed more progessively it will give the company owner two choices; to keep the money in his business, thus giving the business more oppurtunity to invest since they have more money, or having most of it taxed away, which gives the state more money to invest or redistribute to the poor. Unless the income taxation reaches 100%, being efficient will ALWAYS be more profitable than being inefficient, and it will always give you an advantage against competitors on the market.
And, the company leader hasn't been successful by himself. Everyone who bought his products has increased his success. And many of these people wouldn't have bought your products if they didn't have roads to travel on, couldn't afford the heart surgery earlier that year, is unemployed and can not provide for himself etc. The state provides you the oppurtunity to amass success, and in return it's basically stealing (yes, I can use that word too) if the company owner isn't paying back for the services that eventually got him successful.
Also, the communist guy wanted a 100% tax rates and earnings above a million euros.
Meaning an effective income limit.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;35879767]We had a war going on. A flurry of patriotism changes someones view on taxes. If I was told my taxes were going to beat some bastards in Germany, then gladly would I pay up. If I was told by the government that it was to give the government more money and reduce debt, then many people would have more difficulty with that statement.[/QUOTE]
So then when it went up again in 1936, I guess we were just getting an early start on the Japanese or what?
ronpaul4ever hahahahah really
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35878974]Sweet titty fucking Christ everything you just said is damned stupid. That's idiotic to think that anyone would rather make less money so that they are taxed less than make more money but be taxed more. They'll still be getting a higher income after taxes than if they earned less and were taxed less. If someone actually believes it is better for them to be taxed less and simultaneously make less money, then they are flat out fucking incompetent and most likely a danger to themselves and those around them.[/QUOTE]
Whoa you got mad and missed my point lol. I agree that they would make slightly more, I said it would reduce motivation to cut inefficiency and waste because the benefits for doing so would be negligible, and it still hasn't been shown why the government should have any right to take the vast majority of successful people's income.
Also if we're talking about a system with 100% tax rate where profit doesn't exist at all then you will probably never be able to find the most efficient ways to produce goods.
[QUOTE=Noble;35880216]Whoa you got mad and missed my point lol. I agree that they would make slightly more, I said it would reduce motivation to cut inefficiency and waste because the benefits for doing so would be negligible, and it still hasn't been shown why the government should have any right to take the vast majority of successful people's income.
Also if we're talking about a system with 100% tax rate where profit doesn't exist at all then you will probably never be able to find the most efficient ways to produce goods.[/QUOTE]
except companies have proven again and again that they don't care about inefficiency or waste as long as they are lining their pockets. it's government intervention that keeps companies on track because men who only care about money cannot be trusted to do what is right only what makes a buck. i don't think anyone is advocating a 100% tax rate
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35880227]except companies have proven again and again that they don't care about inefficiency or waste as long as they are lining their pockets. it's government intervention that keeps companies on track because men who only care about money cannot be trusted to do what is right only what makes a buck. i don't think anyone is advocating a 100% tax rate[/QUOTE]
That's the profit incentive, and even if you take that away it doesn't mean business leaves, just that there is less profit to be made. Not that there is no profit to be made, just that there is less.
Corporations are amoral machines that try to make as much money as possible.
Without rules to restrain them, companies would be a lot more immoral than they are now.
It is just that simple: corporations are not people, they are machines.
the profit incentive is the reason we're in such fucked financial situations. not enough government regulation so companies do fucked up shit as long as it makes them a quick buck and we all get fucked over
[editline]9th May 2012[/editline]
i mean i understand that its good they want to make money cause money makes the world go round, but there HAS to be government intervention because companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;35879941]If higher income gets taxed more progessively it will give the company owner two choices; to keep the money in his business, thus giving the business more oppurtunity to invest since they have more money, or having most of it taxed away, which gives the state more money to invest or redistribute to the poor. Unless the income taxation reaches 100%, being efficient will ALWAYS be more profitable than being inefficient, and it will always give you an advantage against competitors on the market.[/quote]
How are they going to have more money? The net income the business earns is what is going to be taxed away, they don't have a choice.
[quote]And, the company leader hasn't been successful by himself. Everyone who bought his products has increased his success. And many of these people wouldn't have bought your products if they didn't have roads to travel on, couldn't afford the heart surgery earlier that year, is unemployed and can not provide for himself etc. The state provides you the oppurtunity to amass success, and in return it's basically stealing (yes, I can use that word too) if the company owner isn't paying back for the services that eventually got him successful.[/QUOTE]
The company owner already is paying back for these services just like everyone else at a normal tax level. I'm asking why it's right to raise the tax to 75-90% levels.
[QUOTE=Noble;35880517]How are they going to have more money? The net income the business earns is what is going to be taxed away, they don't have a choice.
The company owner already is paying back for these services just like everyone else at a normal tax level. I'm asking why it's right to raise the tax to 75-90% levels.[/QUOTE]
because you may think that the reason they're rich is because they work harder or are smarter or some bullshit but the fact is if it wasn't for modern society they would not be at the position they are in. they pay more because they have clearly benefited more from the society they are apart of. and if they weren't greedy pieces of shit they would not see a problem with giving back to the country that's given them so much
[QUOTE=Noble;35880216]Whoa you got mad and missed my point lol. I agree that they would make slightly more, I said it would reduce motivation to cut inefficiency and waste because the benefits for doing so would be negligible, and it still hasn't been shown why the government should have any right to take the vast majority of successful people's income.
Also if we're talking about a system with 100% tax rate where profit doesn't exist at all then you will probably never be able to find the most efficient ways to produce goods.[/QUOTE]No, I took your point and nailed it to the damn wall and made it look ridiculous because it inherently is. And governments can do so as the trade off for offering the numerous services that they provide to the people. Governments do not exist to benefit a single individual or their income, but for the greater good of the people as a whole. This must be paid for through taxes, which are collected proportional to how much one has to offer on the whole. Its not because of the idiotic belief that they want to punish success or steal hard earned income or be mean to the wealthy or whatever stupid reason one might try to come up with. Its because it damn well has to be done, and the wealthy are simply better equipped for it. Its the difference between having to have ten men lift a heavy object and a single man of greater strength than those ten combined lift the heavy object. Its about what one has to offer. Those of higher incomes can afford to lose more of their income than those of lower incomes.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35880563]because you may think that the reason they're rich is because they work harder or are smarter or some bullshit but the fact is if it wasn't for modern society they would not be at the position they are in. they pay more because they have clearly benefited more from the society they are apart of. and if they weren't greedy pieces of shit they would not see a problem with giving back to the country that's given them so much[/QUOTE]
They're in the position they are in because they were able to provide what consumers want, I hardly believe "modern society" has anything to do with it.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35880609]No, I took your point and nailed it to the damn wall and made it look ridiculous because it inherently is. And governments can do so as the trade off for offering the numerous services that they provide to the people. Governments do not exist to benefit a single individual or their income, but for the greater good of the people as a whole. This must be paid for through taxes, which are collected proportional to how much one has to offer on the whole. Its not because of the idiotic belief that they want to punish success or steal hard earned income or be mean to the wealthy or whatever stupid reason one might try to come up with. Its because it damn well has to be done, and the wealthy are simply better equipped for it. Its the difference between having to have ten men lift a heavy object and a single man of greater strength than those ten combined lift the heavy object. Its about what one has to offer. Those of higher incomes can afford to lose more of their income than those of lower incomes.[/QUOTE]
That analogy doesn't really describe what we're talking about. We're talking about people's money (property) being taken.
Also if the tax was "collected proportional to how much one has to offer" than it would be by definition a fixed rate tax that does not vary by income
[QUOTE=Noble;35880653]They're in the position they are in because they were able to provide what consumers want, I hardly believe "modern society" has anything to do with it.[/QUOTE]Not really, its straight up luck. No hard work or skill or providing what was wanted. They got lucky. Things happened to go just right for them that they ended up earning millions of dollars. If a hundred people did exactly what one of them did, only one might come out wealthy. It simply boils down to just luck.
[QUOTE=Noble;35880653]They're in the position they are in because they were able to provide what consumers want, I hardly believe "modern society" has anything to do with it.[/QUOTE]
you think someone making a million euros in france would be making that much in sierra leone? of course it has to do with modern society.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35880356]That's the profit incentive, and even if you take that away it doesn't mean business leaves, just that there is less profit to be made. Not that there is no profit to be made, just that there is less.[/QUOTE]
Weren't we discussing income tax rather than cooperate tax? If anyone were to suggest a 75% cooperate tax, the whole labor market would stagnate and all domestic companies wouldn't be able to export any products due to the high prices that would be needed to cover the taxes. If having a 75% income tax would be stupid and unfair, having a 75% cooperate tax would be pure madness.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35880172]ronpaul4ever hahahahah really[/QUOTE]
I thought gimmick accounts were bannable.
[QUOTE=Beechey;35853582]Yep, but that is the way democracy works sometimes. Sucks in you are in the minority, I guess.[/QUOTE]
That's the way first-past-the-post works. Instant run-off for the win.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35876119]Because Taxation is basically theft.
If taking 100% of someones labour wage is considered theft, at what percentage does it stop being theft?
Sure most of the time taxpayers get services paid for by some of their taxes but what if they don't want those services? What if they don't want to pay for other peoples medical care, for example?
Most of the time services paid for by taxpayers are run by large wasteful and inefficient government bureaucracies (they are spending money that they get regardless of whether they perform well or not) and paying a private provider would work out as better value if people were given the choice instead of forced to pay the state regardless.[/QUOTE]
Do you use water, electricity or roads? If so, please thank yourself for the taxes you pay and/or any local government employee.
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;35881362]Weren't we discussing income tax rather than cooperate tax? If anyone were to suggest a 75% cooperate tax, the whole labor market would stagnate and all domestic companies wouldn't be able to export any products due to the high prices that would be needed to cover the taxes. If having a 75% income tax would be stupid and unfair, having a 75% cooperate tax would be pure madness.[/QUOTE]
I'm not suggesting we have a 75% corporate income tax, in fact I don't think such a thing has ever existed.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;35879805]Anarchism is wrong because it is unworkable. In the state of nature, man's life is, as Hobbes put it, "nasty, brutish and short". Libertarian socialism is contradictory because socialism requires a state.
[/QUOTE]
Uhhh... No.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory[/URL]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia[/URL]
I'd suggest reading Anarchist FAQ if you want to learn more. [URL="http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ"]http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ[/URL]
I love how people think that taxes are such the evil incarnate.
And I don't see how being taxed for 75% (that only applies to people who gain a massive amount of money) is bad. Even after buying these taxes, they'd still have more than the necessary amount (which is around 1000€) to live correctly in France per month
[QUOTE=ADT;35884492]I love how people think that taxes are such the evil incarnate.
And I don't see how being taxed for 75% (that only applies to people who gain a massive amount of money) is bad. Even after buying these taxes, they'd still have more than the necessary amount (which is around 1000€) to live correctly in France per month[/QUOTE]
It's not that unreasonable, really. You'd still have more than enough, and public services can be fully covered without too much burden on the poor and middle classes.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35881718]Do you use water, electricity or roads? If so, please thank yourself for the taxes you pay and/or any local government employee.[/QUOTE]
Water and electricity are supplied by private companies in my country.
Roads on the other hand are poorly maintained, planned, and managed.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35885465]Water and electricity are supplied by private companies in my country.
Roads on the other hand are poorly maintained, planned, and managed.[/QUOTE]
The costs associated with roads are higher than you think, any private company attempting to run and maintain a road which isn't made of compacted dirt or gravel would have severe difficulties doing so. So, be thankful you have crappily managed roads rather than non-existent roads.
Further I am going to assume the infrastructure for water and electricity in your country was first created by the government then later privatised (as these things often happen). So, (probably) thank the government for allowing you to post your anarcho-capitalist musings on the internet
This honestly suprised me. The french are pretty racist. E.g. Pieds noirs. (Black foot.)
One of my friends is arabic and we're wonder what's going to happen to him when we head to france.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35885465]Water and electricity are supplied by private companies in my country.
Roads on the other hand are poorly maintained, planned, and managed.[/QUOTE]
the government makes sure that water is clean, the government makes sure your power is safe to use
[QUOTE=Megafan;35880356]That's the profit incentive, and even if you take that away it doesn't mean business leaves, just that there is less profit to be made. Not that there is no profit to be made, just that there is less.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Megafan;35882587]I'm not suggesting we have a 75% corporate income tax, in fact I don't think such a thing has ever existed.[/QUOTE]
In so case I guess you mean that individuals would/wouldn't leave. Not business.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35885465]Water and electricity are supplied by private companies in my country.
Roads on the other hand are poorly maintained, planned, and managed.[/QUOTE]
Water and Electricity are supplied by private companies - however, this is only the case after Thatcher and Major privatised them. Whether or not private companies 'run' services 'better', the cost of those services are much, much higher than if they were state owned. Besides I had a power cut for 8 hours last night so the private companies cannot be that great :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
