Free Lunch

[Robust]

Apart from the goodness of our environment, and from which humanity cannot

exclude itself, there could be no survival of any. Is it not enough to contend

with the natural calamities and disorientations but we must further the

indemnity through petty self interests, classifications and euphemistic catch-all

phrases?

 

We do not own the earth or the sun or the goodness these things provide; they

are free - the lunch is free. What we pay so dearly for are the lives and energies

of those who gather and prepare the lunch. Rewarding the despoilers through

taxation of the goodness is a poor and destructive economics.

[Qfwfq]

Rewarding the despoilers through

taxation of the goodness is a poor and destructive economics.

:)

Examples?

[Robust]

:)

Examples?

Retail Sales tax??

[Biochemist]

Rewarding the despoilers through taxation of the goodness is a poor and destructive economics.

Who are the despoilers?

[Dark Mind]

This is pretty much a statement of beliefs, and I'm not going to argue with them. Nice, insightful posts Robust. Unforunatley society as a whole will probably never realize the evils of government (or at least be able to agree upon them.).

[Robust]

:)

Examples?

 

State/Federal income tax restructuring....

[Biochemist]

State/Federal income tax restructuring....

It sounds like you are disposed against taxes. Do you think any tax structure is fair, or are you opposed to all taxes?

[Turtle]

___IMO it is a result of agriculture & has its beginning in the Neo-Lithic age & the necessity of "owning" property. Before that, everyone understood it was all free & the fighting was minimal, eg. over sexual partners perhaps. :)

___I recognize it is a free lunch & make a sincere to eat less & acknowledge the source. :)

[Robust]

It sounds like you are disposed against taxes. Do you think any tax structure is fair, or are you opposed to all taxes?

 

Not at all opposed to consumption taxation. I am much opposed to taxing the productive side of it.

[Buffy]

Not at all opposed to consumption taxation. I am much opposed to taxing the productive side of it.

Ah so we should only tax the proletariat and not the bourgeois capitalist running dog oppressors...

 

Why is it okay to only tax people with salaries, and what they need to survive? If someone makes all their income off of "investments" (and those who do so exclusively who are not of retirement age represent the richest segment of society), why should they pay no taxes?

 

Oddly enough, we're reaching for this ideal in the US: Sales taxes only affect consumers and producers and middlemen pay no equivalent of VAT taxes elsewhere, and soon there will be no taxes for investments or inheritance and the rich will pay the same percentage of wages as the poor in income taxes. The rest of the world should be drooling! No wonder they're streaming over our borders to live here!

 

Contrarian, not Communist,

Buffy

[Tormod]

Nice, insightful posts Robust. Unforunatley society as a whole will probably never realize the evils of government (or at least be able to agree upon them.).

 

This is a strange comment...so I take it you are an anarchist, then?

 

Or was there a smilie missing somewhere? :)

[tarak]

What about the guy who is selling real estate on the moon???

[Biochemist]

Not at all opposed to consumption taxation. I am much opposed to taxing the productive side of it.

But I thought you mentioned above that your were opposed to retail sales tax (the stereotype for consumption tax). I am sorry I am confused on this. Who are the "despoilers" (in your first post) that trouble you?

[lindagarrette]

 

Oddly enough, we're reaching for this ideal in the US: Sales taxes only affect consumers and producers and middlemen pay no equivalent of VAT taxes elsewhere, and soon there will be no taxes for investments or inheritance and the rich will pay the same percentage of wages as the poor in income taxes. The rest of the world should be drooling! No wonder they're streaming over our borders to live here!

 

Contrarian, not Communist,

Buffy

I don't understand what you are getting at. Sales taxes are regressive but so are VAT. Ideally, inheritance would be 100% taxable with no loopholes and the money should be used in an education fund to bring everyone up to a similar playing field. Then people would have to spend everything they earn and save during their lifetimes. That would result in more goods and services being consumed, at lower prices, which would relieve the oversupply we are dealing with now in our inflated economy. (This thread probably belongs in a different topic. It's well worth discussing.)

[Biochemist]

Why is it okay to only tax people with salaries, and what they need to survive? If someone makes all their income off of "investments" (and those who do so exclusively who are not of retirement age represent the richest segment of society), why should they pay no taxes?

Buff- I don't know what you are talking about. It is certainly not US tax policy. Investment gains are all taxed (unfortunately) eventually. Property is taxed irrespective of gains.

Oddly enough, we're reaching for this ideal in the US: Sales taxes only affect consumers and producers and middlemen pay no equivalent of VAT taxes elsewhere, and soon there will be no taxes for investments or inheritance and the rich will pay the same percentage of wages as the poor in income taxes.

Buff- In the US, the top 1% pay about 10% of total income traxes. The top 10% pay about two thirds of total income tax. The bottom 50% of people pay 4% of total income tax. These numbers become only slightly less skewed when you add in the payroll taxes, and they become MORE skewed if you add in property taxes. Are you suggesting this is not progressive enough???

[Buffy]

Sales taxes are regressive but so are VAT.

Oh yes, I was just responding to Robust's seeming complaint about taxing *producers* which VAT does and US state sales taxes do not.

(This thread probably belongs in a different topic. It's well worth discussing.)

I agree. I think it belongs in my favorite forum: Social Sciences... Admins?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Buff- I don't know what you are talking about. It is certainly not US tax policy. Investment gains are all taxed (unfortunately) eventually. Property is taxed irrespective of gains.

My verb tenses were obscure, but the point is that there is a very strong push on to eliminate all taxes on all capital gains, including real estate. If you lived in California, you'd be benefiting from the fact that your property tax increases are based on property values that are frozen when you buy, and every election brings initiatives that are opposed by groups who don't care what the proposal is: as long as it increases property taxes it should be defeated. This is why our public schools suck so badly here.

Buff- In the US, the top 1% pay about 10% of total income traxes. The top 10% pay about two thirds of total income tax. The bottom 50% of people pay 4% ... Are you suggesting this is not progressive enough???

Again, tense issue: Bush's number one goal after "saving" Social Security (another thread please), is to implement a flat tax. There's an argument that says if it isn't flat, that loopholes will be created for the upper incomes to create an effective flat tax (or worse). I don't think that's justification for not having indexed tax rates with no loopholes. I'm in the top 1%: I actually like paying my taxes! :xx:

 

Cheers,

Buffy